A Refutation of Islam
Muhammad was once exhorted to test his teaching by the previous revelations of Jews and Christians. (Koran, Sura 10:94).
My Response: He either failed to do this or did a terrible job.
THE DEITY OF CHRIST
Muslims deny the deity of Christ and the fact he the Son of God. They hold to Dynamic Monarchianism, the view that Jesus was just a sinless prophet.
Sura 112 of the Koran states: ..."God, The Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten:"
Sura 5:75: "They do blaspheme who say : 'God is Christ the son of Mary"...
Sura 5:75: "Christ the son of Mary Was no more than An Apostle"...
Sura 10:68: "They say, 'God hath begotten A son'--Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient...No warrant Have ye for this!"...
My Response:
Christ is depicted as divine in the Old Testament. (Psalms 110:1; Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 12:10; Daniel 7:13-14 -son of man in the clouds of Heaven-; Micah 5:2).
Jesus is specifically called God in John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:6-8; Acts 20:25; Hebrews 1:8; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1. Jesus is called Lord in 1Cor. 16:22. Mark 12 (In the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard, Jesus refers to himself as the son). God called Jesus His Son in Mark 1:11. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in Mark 14. Demons called Jesus the Son of God who could destroy them. (Luke 4:41; 8:28). Jesus is worshiped by heavenly beings in Revelation 5. Jesus claims to be God's Son in Matthew 11:27. According to the New Testament scholar William Lane Craig, as far as he knows, all Johanine scholars, whether theologically conservative or liberal, from Rudolph Bultmann to Bart Ehrman believe that the author of the Gospel of John believed that Jesus was God. (William Lane Craig’s debate with Dale Tuggy at ReasonableFaithOrg, YouTube ).
In Philippians 2:6-8, Paul calls Jesus God. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
We see here that Jesus preexisted in the "form of God." The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson amplifies the Greek meaning: "in the form of God en morphei theou. Morphe means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ." (Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, 4:444).
The British New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado argues in his book, "Lord Jesus Christ," that the term "Lord" (Greek, "Kyrios") is a title for deity, since it is the Greek translation of the Old Testament "Yahweh". The title "Kyrios" is applied to Jesus numerous times in the undisputed epistles of St. Paul. (e.g. 1Cor. 10:21; 10:22; Cor. 3:16; 1Thess. 3:13; 4:6; Phil. 2:10-11). Most recent studies conclude that the key semantic background is in Jewish tradition, and that designation of Jesus as Lord goes back to the very earliest Jewish Christians. (see Foerster and Quell, "Kyrios," in TDNT, 3:1039-98; Fitzmyer, "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios Title," in his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, SBLMS 25 (Missoula Scholars, 1979), 115-43.
Also see "Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology", by David Capes.
THE HOLY TRINITY
Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21; Hebrews 1:8.
Trinity Implications in the Old Testament:
Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Psalms 45:6-7; 110:1; Isaiah 63:10; Isaiah 48:16; Malachi 3:1-2; Hosea 1:7; Proverbs 8:22-31.
The angel of the Lord is called God or Lord in Genesis 16:13; Exodus 3:2-6; 23:20-22; Numbers 22:35.
EARLY PATRISTIC DATA ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
This is just a sample. St. Ignatius spoke of the blood of God. (Letter to The Ephesians, chap. 1). Mathetes, a disciple of the apostles spoke of Christ as God. Justin Martyr affirmed the deity of Christ (Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 61). Melito of Sardis said God was murdered. Irenaeus called Jesus God. (Against Heresies).
NON-BIBLICAL LITERATURE ON THE DEITY OF MESSIAH
The deity of Messiah is affirmed in the Dead Sea Scroll fragment known as "The Son of God" (4Q246). 4Q521 speaks of the Messiah raising the dead. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q174 calls the Messiah the Son of God, who will build the temple. 4 Ezra 7:28-29 calls the Messiah God's son. In the first century Similitude's of Enoch the Messiah is portrayed as a godlike figure who existed with the Lord "prior to the creation of the world and for eternity." (1Enoch 48:6). 4 Ezra 13 reports a man rising out of the sea and God calls him "my Son." (13:32, 37).
PRAYER TO JESUS
The normal biblical pattern is to pray to God the Father, but there are many cases of prayer to Jesus (Acts 1:24; 7:59; 9:10-11; 1Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20; 2Cor. 12:8; Heb.4:16). Further, Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses since he is "a merciful and faithful high priest." (Heb. 2:17) who is able to "sympathize with our weaknesses." (Heb. 4:15).
RECOMMENDED BOOKS
Rather than list numerous biblical passages showing the deity of Christ, I will direct the reader to the books:
How on earth did Jesus become a god?, by Hurtado;
Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, by Bowman;
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, by Hurtado.
THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Muslims contradict the New Testament and history by denying the death of Christ.
Sura 4:157-59: "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Apostle of God'; --But they killed him not, nor crucified him, But so it was made To appear to them"...
My Response:
The New Testament states numerous times that Jesus died on the cross (Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1Thess. 4:14).
The Old Testament predicted that Christ would die (Isa. 53:5-10; Ps. 22:16; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 10:10). Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah (Matt. 4:14; 5:17-18; 8:17; John 4:25-26; 5:39).
Jesus stated that he was going to die (John 2:19-21; 10:10-11; Matt. 12:40; Mark 8:31).
The predictions of Jesus' resurrection in the Old Testament and the New Testament are based on the fact that he would die (Ps. 16:10; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2).
When on the cross, Jesus' was pierced in his side with a spear, and blood and water came out (John 19:34). When this occurs, it is medical proof that the person has already died.
In Luke 23:46, Jesus prayed "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." Jesus's death cry was heard by those who stood by him (John 19:47-49).
Roman soldiers pronounced Jesus' death and they did not break his legs (see John 19:33).
The Governor Pilate checked to make sure Jesus was dead, and he granted the body to Joseph (Mark 15:44-45).
Medical experts who have examined the events surrounding Christ's death have concluded that he died. The American Medical Association declared: "the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted...Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge." (See the article on Christ's death in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 1986, 1463).
Medical authorities have concluded that Christ died: Dr. Stround (On the Physiological Cause of Christ's Death); Pierre Barbet (A Doctor at Calvary); C. Truman Davis ("The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Passion of Christ From a Medical Point of View" in Arizona Medicine); Robert Bucklin ("The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ" in Medicine, Science and Law); Robert Wassenar ("A Physician Looks at the Suffering of Christ" in Moody Monthly) --Source: Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2. p, 614.
Non-Christian historians and writers from the first and second centuries recorded Jesus' death.
The Jewish historian Josephus wrote: "Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross." (Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" 18:3).
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus reported: "a wise man who was called Jesus...Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die." Tacitus also reported that Jesus' disciples "reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive." (Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, 15.44).
According to Julius Africanus, the first century Palestinian historian, Thallus (A.D. 52), "when discussing the darkens which fell upon the land during the crucifixion of Christ," spoke of an eclipse. (see, Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 113).
Lucian spoke of Christ as "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world." He called him the "crucified sophist." (Lucian, On the Death of Peregrine).
The letter of Mara Bar Serapion (A.D. 73) is housed in the British Museum, and speaks of Christ's death. It asks, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 114).
The Jewish Talmud says, "on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth)...Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin, 43a, "Eve of Passover").
The Roman historian Phlegon spoke of Jesus' death and resurrection in his Chronicles, "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed his hands had been pierced by nails." (Chronicles, as cited by Origin, 'Against Celsus" from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976, vol. 4, 455).
Phelgon mentioned 'the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caeasar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place." (ibid).
Early Christian writers after the time of Christ spoke of his death on the cross.
Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John stated: "our Lord Jesus Christ, who for ours sins suffered even unto death." (Polycarp, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philipians, Chapter 1 in "The Apostolic Fathers," ed. A Cleveland Coxe, in Roberts and Donaldson, 33).
Ignatius was a friend of Polycarp, and he affirmed Jesus' death, saying "And He really suffered and died, and rose again."
According to Ignatius, otherwise the apostles died in vain. He wrote "But, (in truth) none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly." (Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter 3 in "The Apostolic Fathers, ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 107).
In his "Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr notes that the Jews of his time believed that "Jesus [was] a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho).
Justin Martyr referred to the "Acts of Pontus Pilate" under whom "nails were fixed in Jesus' hands and feet on the cross; and after he was crucified, his executioners cast lots for his garments." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 35, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 175).
The liberal theologian Hans Kung writes: "the fact of the crucifixion, which according to all the earliest Christian, Jewish and pagan sources is historically indisputable and needs no proof." (Kung, Islam: Past, Present & Future, p. 498).
John Crossan, co-founder of the liberal organization known as the Jesus Seminar, declared: “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.” (Crossan, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography, p. 145).
Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann: “Jesus death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” (Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, p. 50).
The agnostic NT textual scholar Bart Ehrman lists 15 independent sources for the crucifixion. (see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth).
We know from the research of Dr. Gary Habermas that about 100 percent of New Testament scholars today, whether they are theologically conservative or liberal, believe Jesus died by crucifixion. For more information on this, see his book, "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus."
THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS
(See below at the end of the article)
THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
Muslims hold the view that the New Testament is corrupted.
My Response:
There is no manuscript or archaeological evidence supporting their view.
No document from the ancient world is as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament (Montgomery, History and Christianity, p. 29).
Greek New Testament manuscripts date of original composition: AD 45-100.
Earliest manuscript AD 117-325. Gap from original 30-300 years.
Greek manuscript copies, roughly 5,500.
Number of non-Greek manuscripts: 18,000.
The late liberal New Testament scholar John Robinson concluded that the Gospel record was written within the lives of the apostles, somewhere between 40 and 60 A.D. (see his book, Redating the New Testament).
The German theologian Eta Linnemann said that the position of negative New Testament criticism, which held the view that the NT manuscripts do not accurately preserve the words and deeds of Jesus is now defunct. The former student of Rudolph Bultmann writes:
"As time passes, I become more and more convinced that to a considerable degree New Testament criticism as practiced by those committed to historical-critical theology does not deserve to be called science." (Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Development of the First Three Gospels, p. 9).
G.D. Kilpatrick of Oxford said, "no one has so far shown that the New Testament is contaminated with the grammar or orthography [spelling] of a later period." (Wenham, Christ and the Bible, p. 179).
John Warwick Montgomery said: "the time interval between the writing of the New Testament documents as we have them and the events in Jesus' life which they record is too brief to allow for communal redaction [editing or tampering with] by the Church." (Montgomery, Where is History Going? p. 50).
John Warwick Montgomery also stated: "Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of the New Testament geography, chronology, and general history"...(see Montgomery, Human Rights and Human Dignity, pp. 143-144).
John Wenham writes: "The interesting and important thing about the late-second-century text is this: at the early date there was already a wide diversity of variants. These variants were of course mostly quite minor in character, but they show that there had been no recent systematic editing of the documents to make them conform to some standard version." (Wenham, Christ and the Bible, p. 178).
Sir Fredrick G. Kenyon, director and principal librarian of the British Museum said about the existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." (as quoted in Montgomery, Where is History Going? p. 45).
Sir Fredrick G. Kenyon also wrote: "The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world." (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology----, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 55). "Islamic scholars recognize the textual scholar Sir Fredrick Kenyon as an authority on ancient manuscripts." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 533).
The Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf, credited with writing the standard study of legal evidence, wrote: "copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels, would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation." (Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, 9-10).
As for the book of Acts, the classical Roman historian, A.N. Sherwin White notes: "For the New Testament book of Acts, the confirmation of history is overwhelming...Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." (Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 189).
There is no evidence that the New Testament message was destroyed or corrupted as Muslims claim. Whenever anyone claims the New Testament was changed or corrupted, ask them how much textual criticism they have studied. I asked the British New Testament scholar Dr. Larry Hurtado to respond to the Islamic claim that the New Testament was corrupted. He replied:
"Look. The muslim claim is religious propaganda, not scholarship. So, scholars don't reply to religious propaganda." (Email 3/13/2019).
Dr. Hurtado directed me to the book, "The Early Text of the New Testament" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), by Hill and Kruger. For further research, consult "An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, 2nd ed (New York; Doubleday, 1928), by Robertson; or "The Text of the New Testament" (London: Macmillan, 1961), by Taylor.
For archaeological evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, see McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament; Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology, 3d ed, 308-438; Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures: An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology, pp. 92-166.
LEGAL EXPERTS ON GOSPEL RELIABILITY
Lawyers that were originally critics of the Gospels but became believers after studying and applying the legal rules of evidence:
Craig Parton, Ross Clifford, Frank Morrison, Thomas Sherlock (The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus), Simon Greenleaf (The Testimony of the Evangelists). To see a recent survey of this area, read "The Historical Development of Legal Apologetics, with an Emphasis on the Resurrection," by William Broughton.
There are three forms of evidence: testimonial, documentary and real. The Gospels are documentary evidence (i.e., writings).
Appropriate custody contributes to the authenticity of the documents. (Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, p. 16).
The Gospels have been in the Church, so they can be authenticated. (ibid 16-17).
The early Church carefully copied and translated the words and deeds of Christ without fabrication. (Limbaugh, Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel, p. 212).
Even though hearsay, Jesus' claims to be the Son of God are allowed into court with an exception. They fall under the "person authorized to speak" exception. (Federal Rules of Evidence 801 [d] [2] [c]. Jesus was authorized to speak for God.
Witnesses are generally presumed to be competent unless the contrary is demonstrated. (FRE 601).
JESUS VS. PAUL
Muslims drive a wedge between Jesus and the Apostle Paul. They claim Paul corrupted Jesus' message. However, we know from Galatians 1-2 that Paul's message was checked and approved by the apostles. St. Peter referred to St. Paul as a beloved brother and referred to his writings in 2 Peter 3:15. See these books: "The Origin of Paul's Religion," by Machen; "Paul and Jesus,' by Bruce; and "Paul and Jesus,' by Ridderbos.
St. Paul claims to be an eye-witness to the resurrected Christ, and his writings predate any of the Gospels. Three years after Paul's conversion, he went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with St. Peter. (see Gal. 1). He also met St. James, the brother of Christ. Paul also states that 14 years later he went back to Jerusalem and met Peter, James and John. (see Gal. 2). He says that the reason for this visit was because he wanted to confirm that the Gospel message he had been preaching was accurate. Paul says they confirmed his preaching, and they extended to him the right hand of fellowship. According to Paul, his preaching was certified by the pillars (Peter, James, John). How do we know Paul related the truth? St. Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter, and he called Paul the blessed Paul, and in his letter to the church at Corinth, Clement places Paul on par with his mentor the Apostle Peter. St. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and in his letter to the church at Philippi, he states that Paul accurately and reliably taught the message of truth. And in the same letter, he quotes from Paul's letter twice and refers to them as part of the sacred Scripture. These are not the kind of things you would say about Paul if he was teaching heresy. Clement spoke of "the good apostles" (Peter and Paul). (1Clem. 5:3-6:1), and he called Paul, "the blessed Paul the apostle" (1Clem 47:1). Polycarp writes: "the blessed and glorious Paul...accurately and reliably taught the message concerning truth." (Poly, Phil. 3:2). When we hear from St. Paul, we are hearing the voice of the Jerusalem apostles.
WHO IS ALLAH?
The name “Allah” was known in pre-Islamic Arabia, and it had a feminine form, “Allat.” (Jeffrey, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, p. 85).
“Allah” is a proper name, applicable only to their [Arabs’) peculiar God.” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T.&T Clark, 1908), I:326).
“Allah” is a pre-Islamic name…corresponding to the Babylonian Bel.” (Encyclopedia of Religion, eds. Paul Meagher, Thomas O’Brian, Consuela Aherne (Washington D.C.: Corpus Pub., 1979), I:117).
“Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities” (Encyclopedia of Islam (ed. Gibb), I:406).
“The origin of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times. Allah is not a common name meaning “God” (or a “god”), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity.” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. Hastings), 1:326).
One of the names of the moon god in pre-Islamic Arabia, was “Allah.” (see Guillaume, Islam, p. 7).
Allah was married to the sun goddess, and together they had three daughters (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). (Morey, The Islamic Invasion, p. 50).
"Historians have said that Allah was actually the chief of the 360 gods being worshiped in Arabia at the time Muhammad rose to prominence. Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities…Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshiped at the Ka’ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Muhammad came. Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this.” (G.J.O. Moshay, Who Is Allah? (Dorchester House, Bucks, UK, 1994) p. 138.
“The name Allah, as the Qur’an itself witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa.” (Arthur Jeffrey, ed., Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1956), p. 85).
“Allah is a pre-Islamic name….” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, I:117).
“Allah is found…in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643).
“Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities.” (Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406).
“Ilah…apears in pre-Islamic poetry…By frequency of usage, al-ilah was contracted to allah, frequently attested to in pre-Islamic poetry.” (Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Lewis, Menage, Pellat, Schacht (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), II: 1093).
Allat: Astral and tutelary goddess. Pre-Islamic…One of three daughters of Allah.” (Encyclopedia of Gods, p. 11).
“Manat: Goddess. Pre-Islamic…One of the so-called daughters of Allah.” (Encyclopedia of Gods, p. 156).
"Allah: Originally applied to the moon; he seems to be preceded by Ilmaqah, the moon god…Allat: the female counterpart to Allah.” (Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology, p. 7).
“Allah: Before the birth of Muhammad, Allah was known as a supreme, but not sole, God.” (Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, p. 48).
“The other gods mentioned in the Quran are all female deities: Al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, which represented the Sun, the planet Venus, and Fortune, respectively; at Mecca they were regarded as the daughters of Allah…As Allah meant “the god”, to Al-Lat means “the goddess.” (Alfred Guilaume, Islam (Penguin, 1956) pp.6-7).
“Along with Allah, however, they worshiped a host of lesser gods and ‘daughters of Allah.” (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61).
52 scholarly quotations and sections from encyclopedias from places like Harvard, Cambridge, the University of Edinburgh, etc, have been consulted, and they prove that in pre-Islamic times, Allah was only one of 360 gods married to the sun goddess, and there were three daughters, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
The German scholar Johannes Hauri writes: “Mohammad’s monotheism was just as much a departure from true monotheism as the polytheistic ideas…Mohammad’s idea of God is out and out deistic.” (Quoted in Zwemer, Muslim Doctrines, p. 21).
“By the 19th century, because of the dominance of Islam in the Middle East, the word “Allah” was used as a generic name for deity in the Arabic Bible. This was done by British missionaries, who used “Allah” as a means to appease their Muslim oppressors and to escape death. But the time has come to correct their error and to tell the truth that “Allah” is a pagan name for a pagan god.” (Morey, Winning the War Against Radical Islam, p. 142).
Please also note, Emenational Pantheism is not an uncommon belief among Sufi Muslims. ( Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 63).
Allah is Morally Defective, not the Greatest Conceivable Being (God)
The concept of God in Islam is not the same concept of God in Christianity. In order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must be all loving. The Bible teaches God loves all people, including sinners. According to the Koran, God does not love sinners or unbelievers.”God does not love the unbelievers.” (Sura 3:32). He is an enemy to unbelievers. In the Koran, God only loves those who first love him. So, his love rises no higher than the love Jesus said tax collectors and sinners had. They love those who love them. The Koran teaches that God does not love the very people that St. John said God loved so much, he sent his son to die for (John 3:16). St. Paul teaches: “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” (Romans 5:10). Allah’s love is partial and selective; and it has to be earned. It is conditional. The God of Muhammad is not the God of Jesus Christ, not the God of the Bible. I agree with Dr. William Lane Craig, that “The God of the Koran is a defamation of the Heavenly Father revealed by Jesus.” Allah is not the greatest conceivable being, because he is morally defective, and actually wills people to be damned.
That Christians and Muslims worship one God, does not mean that we have the same God.
MUHAMMAD WAS SUPERSTITIOUS
MUHAMMAD WAS NOT THE PARACLETE
Muslims claim Muhammad was the Paraclete (Helper) promised by Christ. Muslims are not the first heretics to make such a bold claim. This was also claimed of Mani, the founder of the ancient heresy known as Manicheasm. Muslims base their claim on the Koran (Sura 61:6), where Muhammad is referred to as "Ahamad" (periclytos), which they claim is the correct rendering of the Greek word "paraclete." There is absolutely no manuscript evidence for placing the word "periclytos" ("praised one") in the original.
In John 14:26, Jesus identified the "Helper" as "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send." The Helper was given to Jesus's apostles (verse 16) just after he died. He was given to those who "testify" of Christ because "they have been with...[him] from the beginning." (John 15:27; cf. Luke 1:1-2; Acts 1:22). Muhammad was not one of Jesus's apostles.
Jesus said the Helper would abide with them "forever" (vs. 16). But Muhammad has been dead for over thirteen centuries.
Jesus said to the apostles "You know him [the Helper] (vs. 17), but the apostles never knew Muhammad.
Jesus said to the apostles that the Helper will be "in you" (vs.17). Muhammad could not have been in the apostles. Apostolic teaching is not even in accord with the teaching of Muhammad.
Jesus said that the Helper would be sent in his [Jesus] name (John 14:26); but Muslims do not claim that Muhammad was sent by Jesus and in Jesus's name.
Jesus said that the Helper he was about to send would "not speak on his own." (John 16:13). But Muhammad testifies to himself (See Sura 33:40).
Jesus said the Helper would glorify Jesus (John 16:14). But Muslims claim Muhammad supersedes Jesus, and they directly contradict Christ's claim to deity, his prophecy of his death, and prophecy of resurrection. They even reject, or ignore, God the Father's declaration that Jesus was His Unique Son (Matthew 3:17; Luke 3:22).
Jesus said that the Helper would come in "not many days" (Acts 1:5). The Helper came fifty days later at Pentecost (Acts 1-2), not in Sixth century Mecca.
The Helper (Holy Spirit) is God (Acts 5:3-4, etc). He is omnipresent (cf. Ps. 139: 7-12) and omniscient (1Cor. 2:10, 11). He contributed to creation (Gen. 1:2). Muhammad was a superstitious and brutal man.
There are no good reasons to believe Muhammad was the Helper, and no good reasons to be a Muslim.
Muslims fall under the Anathema issued by St. Paul in Galatians 1:8-9.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS
Muslims like to cite the Gospel of Barnabas in defense of Islamic teaching. This work claims that Jesus did not die on the cross. It claims that Judas Iscariot died in Jesus' place (sect. 217).
This claim contradicts Scripture, history and scholarship.
The Gospel of Barnabas is fake. J. Slomp notes: "in my opinion scholarly research has proved absolutely that this 'gospel' is a fake. This opinion is also held by a number of Muslim scholars." (Slomp, "The Gospel Dispute," Islamochristiana, p. 68).
According to Longsdale and Ragg, this work dates closer to the sixteenth century. (see their introduction to the Oxford edition of "The Gospel of Barnabas," p. 37).
The earliest reference to the Gospel of Barnabas comes from a fifth century work, "Decretum Gelasianum" (Gelasian Degree, by Pope Gelasius, A.D. 492-495). But this reference is in doubt (Slomp, p. 74).
The earliest form known to us is in an Italian manuscript. It has been analyzed by scholars and judged to belong to the fifteenth or sixteenth century. (see L. Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 79).
There is no reference to it by any Muslim writer before the fifteenth or sixteenth century. (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 67).
No Church Father ever quoted from it from the first to the fifteenth centuries (ibid).
The Gospel of Barnabas contradicts the Quran that Jesus is the Messiah (see sects. 42, 48).
The Quran calls Jesus the Messiah (see suras 5:19, 75).
Even Muslim scholars doubt the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas (Slomp, p. 68).
The Gospel of Barnabas is a late medieval fabrication.