There has been gross misunderstandings dealing with the doctrine of Christianity, here we will use the Quran to expose Muslims apologists who do the exact same thing that the Quran tells them not to do. We will also look into Muslim conversion techniques to expose the fallacies in their arguments on very important issues dealing with Islam and Christianity.

One common Muslim argument against the Trinity is that it consists of 3 gods and therefore is paganism. They use specific Quranic verses which they claim to refute the Trinity, however when we turn these verses around on them, we find that they fit perfectly along with proving them to be unbelievers. We don't even have to assume an argument nor build a strawman before answering it either. Lets actually look at the historical definition of the Trinity to see if it is actually three gods:

Based on Christian and historical doctrine which the Trinity is 3 persons in ONE God not 3 Gods, which would be tritheism. In ancient Babylon and Greece, and other cultures, there is no Trinity in which 3 gods are worshipped at the same time as ONE God. There are many examples of 3 gods but this is tritheism. In order for Muslims to refute the Trinity they must present us with an example of 3 gods being ONE, not his opinion and then claming that Tritheism is a trinity. For example, Christians believe that God's name is YAHWEH or YHWH or YEHOVAH. So our definition of God would mean that the father is YHWH, Jesus is YHWH and the Holy Ghost is also YHWH. Do we see this in any ancient cultures? No. Lets disprove anti-trinitarian notions with these examples:

In Islam when you take gods besides Allah, you are saying that they are equal to him. So does Zeus equal Zeus? Yes.

Does Zeus equal Apollo? No. this means that these are 2 seperate gods, not ONE God working as a unit.

Does Zeus equal Athena? No. this means that these are 2 seperate gods, not ONE God working as a unit. So this would make 3 gods. The So-called Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva the Egyptian triad of Isis, Horus, and Sub all fall under the same problem. In order to count them as a trinity, All must have the same characteristics as well as the same name. Since JESUS, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are all called YHWH, these trinities must follow this same measure. Example Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva must all be called Vishnu, etc. So while the names are different to symbolize each distinct personality, as a unit or whole, all of these so-called Trinities should be called on major name. We don't find this whatsoever in ancient history other than in Christianity. Does the Quran say that this is true? Read:

Muslims who claim that the Trinity is three gods are considered unbelievers since the definition of Trinity is Three beings as ONE GOD, not three Gods.

If the Quran says that Allah is the third of three, who are the other two?

If we take the Islamic argument that this refers to Trinity this means logically that God is by himself and that there are 2 other gods before him, though Allah is supposed to be all in the Trinity! So based on Muslims misintepretation, this means that the Trinity is 1/3 of 3.

If Allah is supposed to be the same God as YHWH, which Muslims vehemently claim, and if Christian theology clearly says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are YHWH, who are the other two being mentioned?

The first thing we should point out is that the word, "Trinity" does not even appear in the Arabic text of the Quran. This is strange since if Allah or Muhammad wanted to refute Trinitarinism they could have clearly mentioned it in the Quran! The word Trinity was present since the first century and a doctrine which is supposed to inspired error isn't even mentioned in the Quran!!! The literal Arabic text reads of the Quran doesn't say trinity, it reads:

The Quran is clearly talking about Tritheism, and not Trinity, so why are Muslims using such verses to nullify the Trinity? Its because they would do everything in their power to discredit Christianity, including make verses appear as what they don't say. Muslims who do this are explictedly disobeying this Quranic verse?

If the Quran clearly tells Christians not to say Three, which we don't anyway, why are Muslims doing the exact same thing by calling a trinity Three Gods? There isn't a dictionary in the world which claims that Trinity is three Gods. This would lead us to believe that Allah doesn't even know the meaning of basic words!!! What is definition of a trinity that Muslims try to dupe over on people?

If the Quran tells us (the people of the book) not to call God 3 why are Muslims saying that the Trinity is three Gods? 3 Gods has never been the definition of Trinity.

One question to as Muslims is if the Quran denied the Trinity, how come it didn't just mention the word Trinity in the Quran? This word was present long before Muhammad and we have to believe that him and Allah knew about this word. This is one question that begs to be answered and it greatly exposes Muslim apologetics for being interpolative as well as biased in propogating Islam.

The Arabic word for the "Holy Trinity" is "al-thaaluuth al-aqdas", pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas. This isn't found in the Quran at all even though it was known in Arabia and before the time of Muhammad and Islam!! The above passage of S. 4:171 is to be read in Arabic as:

And this certainly has to be translated as:

The word "thalaathatun" is the usual cardinal number "three" referring to three things at least one which is of masculine gender. If we use this along with modern Muslim definition of the Trinity, we find out that Allah couldn't be a Trinity if he is just one of three? So now if Muslims are saying that one in Three refers to Trinity, then they are implying that the word ONE MEANS THREE!!! Look at this example:

This would expose Allah as not even being able to add or do simple mathematics!!! Amazing!!! Lets look at some verses in which the form of three (thalaathatun) is mentioned as. Note: THREE is capitalized while it's Arabic equivalent is also capitalized in the bold.

If you look at these verses above, we see that the form of three in Arabic (thalaathatun) doesn't mean Trinity at all. The Quran says no such thing so why are Muslims? Here are the verses if we translate them using Muslim arguments about three being trinity. Read:

Therefore based on modern Islamic thinking we must translate al-thaaluuth al-aqdas as THREE in the Quran!!! So every word for Three in the Quran must mean Trinity right?!!! Based on Islamic thought this would be the case. So if your kid turns three years old he is Trinity years old or if you have three kids or three of something it is a trinity according to Modern Muslim apologists!!! If Muhammad or Allah wanted to deny the Trinity, they would've easily mentioned it in the Quran. Muhammad nor Allah denied the Trinity, they just denied having parnters with God. Since the Trinity means ONE God and not three then the only way we could make Trinity be 3 gods is if we misinteprete the definition which would prove that Allah doesn't know the word for Trinity or he can't even do simple mathematics!! Here is what Muhammad said about the first 2 centuries of Christianity after Christ:

Since the friends kept Christ ordanices for 200 years after him, what did Christians believe from the guidance of Christ? The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea, Muhammad and the Quran. Here we quote people who were born before 200 A.D. even though some lived past this time.

If, as the Muslims maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, why did Muhammad say that Jesus friends kept his guidance and ordances 200 years after him? If the term Trinity was well known throughout the Near East including Arabia, why didn't Muhammad, nor Allah, nor the Quran explictedly say something against it?

Muslims may claim that because Allah is ONE god, this proves that the Trinity is errorneous, however lets look at the definition of ONE. The historical definition of ONE has never meant just a single numerical thing ONLY! One can be a unit or a group. Both of these are more than a single numerical ONE, but are as ONE working together.

Muslims love to present just part of the definition to Trinitarians however, they fell to tell you that there more to it than just that. Because God is ONE doesn't mean whatsoever that God is one person. The only way to arrive at this conclusion is if we exclude the other definitions of one. This is being deceitful and would imply that Islam needs craftyness to verify its claims. Even Jesus understood this matter about ONE not just being ONE person. Lets look at this verse

Muslims don't particularly like this scripture when dealing with the deity of Christ, however if we use Islamic argument about ONE God being ONE person, then we would be force to conclude that JESUS and God are ONE PERSON and therefore God!! However we clearly see here that more than ONE person is used to be refered to as ONE. This fits perfectly along with the definition of ONE, which also means a unit or group.

If the Muslim argument is to be held credible surely they can furnish you a verse saying "THE TRINITY IS WRONG, etc. The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and it is never talked about or rejected in the Quran. Muslims are in error when they say the Trinity is 3 gods, so what did Allah say:

Since Trinity never meant three, why are Muslims disobeying Allah along with interpolating the Quranic text? Because of modern Islamic thinking.

When we read these verses we get the idea that if we join other gods with Allah it is a grave sin. We also see that Christians and Jewish religion isn't as good as the religion of Abraham. However what we will focus here is the idea of whether Muhammad's Allah really allowed equal partners with him.

One notable verse which stands out is S. 6:1. It says that

What is so illogical about Islam dealing with this matter is that Muhammad clearly violated all of these principles. Or in other words while Muslims tell you not to take Jesus as a god, when we study Muhammad in detail we see that he seems to promote himself as equal with Allah.

When we look at this verse we find out that if we have to love Allah we must follow Muhammad. So for all practical purpose by following Muhammad we will have our sins forgiven. Why can't we just follow God, instead of Muhammad? Muhammad was just a man and nothing more. So if we don't follow Muhammad we don't love God? Hence, we are holding Muhammad equal with God, since he never said "if you love Allah follow Allah as he leads me". What if Muhammad made a mistake, which he did many times, did God give him guidance to make these mistakes? So from here we have established that Muhammad does consider himself equal with Allah. Are there more examples? Yes:

We find it presumtuous - not to say blasphemous - when a prophet assumes a position of equality with God ("..... has been decided by Allah and his Apostle...."). So all decisions are made equally by Allah and Muhammad? Why do we have to obey Muhammad along with God? This is blasphemy according to Islam! However, their own prophet claims to make decisions along with his god Allah! Therefore is you disobey Muhammad you have disobey Allah or if you disobeyed Allah you have also disobeyed Muhammad. This would make Muhammad, Allah!!! If Muslims claim that this isn't so, and that Muhammad was nothing more than a man, why is he putting himself in co-equalship in decision making with God? The Quran explictedly says not to do such a thing, however we find that Muhammad does the exact opposite of what his own book prohibits!!

Muhammad,

Even the early Muslims put Muhammad on the level with Allah, unknowingly. How in the world can a normal man know just as best as God supposedly? This would mean that this man is equal in knowledge to God, which is blasphemy!! Muhammad claimed that Allah should be worshipped however he and his companions always seem to place on a pedistal with Allah with phrases such as "ALLAH and HIS APOSTLE".

So people during the time of Muhammad were guaranteed a double reward if they
1. Believed Muhammad.
2. Lived to see him born and live.
3. Affirm their faith in him!!

If this isn't blasphemy I don't know what else is!! What is so special about Muhammad if he was just a man, much like the many so-called prophets of Allah before him? This sounds just like the old man who lived to see the birth of Jesus. He was happy to see the Messiah born into the world so he could die peacefully. Muslims vehemently claim that Christians should promote Jesus as God however Muhammad had no problem making himself equal to Allah. Why would those people have to put their faith in Muhammad? Is Muhammad God? Based on clear Quranic verses and hadith there were times where he did promote himself to be equal with God. Lets look at more blasphemy by Muhammad:

We must ask, since when is a prophet being annoyed the same as annoying God Almighty? This is blasphemy since no man can know God according to Islam. So why is Muhammad claiming to know if God is annoyed when a person annoys him? Again clear proof that Muhammad considered himself as Allah's right hand man.

Whenever a Muslim uses the statement “salla allahu 3ala muhammad” or writes “PBUH” that is supposed to mean Allah prayed upon Muhammad. Being aware of it now and that it isn’t correct, Muslims have changed the meaning of salla from prayed to blessed. But this is only a twist from the real meaning of the verb, since "blessed" in Arabic is actually “baaraka” not “salla”. So why is Allah praying to Muhammad? Why do Muslims use this term and then change the meaning? Because whether they admit it or not, unknowiningly they view Muhammad as equal to their god Allah. We can show you many more examples where Muhammad considered himself equal with Allah, but we will end this section with a few more examples:

Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Him ye have neither patron nor helper. S. 2:107

Since Allah claimed that the earth only belongs to him, did Muhammad speak more blasphemy against his own god? Yes:

So based on Muhammad's own testimony to the Jews, he said that the world or earth belongs to him and Allah. So we do see that Muhammad did in many retrospects, consider himself equal with his god. If Islam was such a logical religion why would it tell you not to accept men as god, while its own prophet, (a man himself) claims that the world belongs to him, etc? Just because Muslims say that Muhammad was no more than a messanger doesn't necessarily mean that this messanger didn't promote himself to be equal with God. Unless Muslims admit that the world doesn't belong to God, or that it is ok to put your faith in men along with God. This is another illogical mess associated with Islam.

In dealing with the evil and deceitful religion of Islam, we notice how Muslims claim that their religion is logical, etc. However when we look at their conversion tactics we see that they hold many logical fallacies in their claims. By reading this section you will see how not to be fooled by Muslim brainwashing which they use to try and convert unaware Christians, etc.

In each type of anti-Christian argument, Muslims usually employ assumptions misintepretations which could be categorized into a word called a "fallacy. Read the definition of Fallacy and then continue on to get a better understanding of Islamic deceitful conversion tactices. Each section begans with a popular Islamic claim and then a response. Some are followed with challenges back to Muslims promoting a perspective theory, while others give sufficient enough information without the need for a counter challenge:

Hence, the word fallacy clearly means something that is based on wrongful logic, whether presumptious or intentional. This word originally comes from the words which means to decieve!! In the Bible people who decieve others (such as one of the defintions of fallacy) are those who clearly follow the leading of Satan, the master of deceit and craftyness. Here we will began our analysis and response to many popular Muslim conversion techniques.

1. WE BELIEVE IN THE ONE TRUE GOD OF ABRAHAM

Response: This claim is a false analogy that proves to be untruthful after care study of the God of the Bible compared to the God of the Quran. False Analogy:- Definition:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

Abraham never called God's personal name "Allah" nor does the Hebrew Bible!

The name of God forever in the Bible is the tetragramaton YHWH or YHVH. It can be pronounced as YAHWEH or YEHOVAH. If Muslims claim that Allah is god's personal name, they must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the prophets, in the Bible, spoke in the name of Allah, as well as prove in Jewish and Hebrew writings that Allah is and was a common personal name for God. Since no evidence of this exist whatsoever in the Hebrew Bible or in any Jewish writing or Hebraic Jewish culture, Muslims only credible argument is one that stems not only from the above fallacy but also the fallacy of Slothful Induction-The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

To promote the idea that Allah is the same as saying God or god doesn't answer the question as to what is God's name? Hence the Arabic Bible mistranslates Allah to equal (Elohim) which is the common word for God in Hebrew, however even this bible doesn't say that God's name is Allah. It uses Al'Rabb as a synonym for YHWH. Be careful of Muslims who will try to twist Allah (used as a common noun in the Arabic Bible, while a proper name in the Quran) to be a proper noun even though it is used as a common noun in the Arabic Bible.

2. WE BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS NEVER CRUCIFIED ACCORDING TO ISLAM.

RESPONSE: This is another fallacy of Slothful Induction

Definition:

The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied
despite the evidence to the contrary.

(i) Hugo has had twelve accidents n the last six months, yet
he insists that it is just a coincidence and not his fault.
(Inductively, the evidence is overwhelming that it is his fault.
This example borrowed from Barker, p. 189)
(ii) Poll after poll shows that the N.D.P will win fewer than
ten seats in Parliament. Yet the party leader insists that the
party is doing much better than the polls suggest. (The N.D.P.
in fact got nine seats.)

Islam began with the alleged prophetic call of Muhammad in the 6th century. Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine, we have bibles dating back to that time. Muhammad neither met nor saw Jesus or did he ever go to Jerusalem. Therefore Muhammad is not a witness and any appeal to what the Quran claims is nothing more than an appeal to Dubious Authority, since neither the Quran nor Muhammad existed at this time and didn't offer any explanation as to how "it was made to appear" to the disciples.

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS CLAIM: In order for Muslims to disprove Jesus crucifixion, they must show ample evidence from the time of Jesus and historical records to prove their case. If all they have is the Quranic description without any major detail, they've present nothing more than a circular argument. So in other words, if you can't find a 1st century document that is credible historically which says that Jesus was never crucified, then the typical Muslim argument is based on nothing but blind faith. This is hardly proof.

3. GOD DOESN'T HAVE A SON BECAUSE HE HAS NO CONSORT.

RESPONSE: This is a strawman argument. The definition of this argument is someone that attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

The Bible doesn't mention that God has a consort either. Therefore Muslims who use this argument to try and convert people have invented a situation based on false assumptions and then proceeded to disprove this argument that was never mentioned. The question of God having a son is answered and shown in both the Old and New Testament:

From Isaiah we see that God established the earth and from Proverbs we see that God has a son. Notice he didn't say SONS which can't be used as a defense by Muslims to claim that Jesus was one of the many sons. Jesus himself further authenticates this:

We see that Jesus says to believe on him and you will have everlasting life.

Since Jesus by his own admission, is claming that God is his OWN (note: not metaphorically, the words pateria idion differentiates from metaphorically) Father then based on Judaism at this time, he is claiming to be equal with God. For more information and detail analysis on Jesus claim to deity Please see this Link

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS ARGUMENT:In order for Muslims to prove "THE SON OF GOD" fact wrong, they must first show explictedly in the Bible where this criteria takes place. Any Quranic or foreign injunction of this argument misses the point and falls under the logical fallacy of "Begging the Question" Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

We will use this same example of argument against the Quran.

This is a silly assumption which makes no sense due to the fact that Muslims have invented the "consort" argument.

4. ARABIC IS THE LANGUAGE OF GOD.

RESPONSE: This is the fallacy of untestability. There is no way to prove this matter since the Quran nor Hadith ever metioned that God's universal language is Arabic. The Torah and Gospel were revealed in Hebrew and Greek and was considered holy; even in the Quran. Therefore, Muslim assertions of this claim is based not only on the above logical fallacy but it also has become popular due to the fallcy of popularity-a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.

5. THE BIBLE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED OVER TIME BY CHRISTIANS.

RESPONSE: This is another fallacy of Slothful Induction. The Quran never mentioned any sort of scripture which says:

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS ARGUMENT: Tell them to show you something exactly of this nature in the Quran and then prove it historically by showing how one one bible with the same passage says the exact opposite of another bible with the same passage. Meaning example:

Since they can't produce this proof, Muslims can only rely on the difference in English translations as the source of their proof. Please tell them nicely that the bible wasn't written in English and that word differentiation patterns in the Greek N.T. especially has no effect on the meaning of the language. That only occurs, well, in English. Muslims will tend to believe anything their Sheik, etc. will tell them blindly.

6. THE QURAN SUPERSEDS THE BIBLE

RESPONSE: This is another fallacy of Untestability. The Quran never mentions that it is greater than the Bible, nor the Hadith nor Muhammad. Muslims claim to follow God and Muhammad as he is lead by God, so why are they arguing a point that is not taught by neither one? Because they have been confused by the Illogicalness of Islam.

7. GOD ISN'T A MAN ACCORDING TO ISLAM

RESPONSE: Muslims who use this argument love to appeal to Numbers 23:19:

Muslims who use this argument appeal to the fallacy of "begging the question" in which the conclusion is assumed before the premisis. The problem with this is the fact that Balaam is not a prophet of God but a pagan soothsayer. Hence, Muslims and Islam base their entire belief on a pagan diviner. This is fine with us since Muhammad is also a pagan prophet. The NIV Commentary explains how people including Muslims misunderstand the Hebraic usage in Balaam's first dealings with God:

The only reason Balaam's passage is in the Bible is universally known to show just how God can embarrass pagan prophets and force them to obey his word. Hence, since Muslims love to make Hasty Generalizations, another fallacy of quickly generalizing information without exstensive study, we can also do the same agains the Quran with Iblees, who in some places is spoken of as an angel or as a jinn in other places. Since Muslims would be quick to object to this quick conclusion, this tells us that the only reason they apply this same fallacy to the Bible is because of their own preconcieved prejudices. Here is more information against the words of the pagan prophet Balaam:

And

Balaam was a pagan prophet who never knew God, and therefore it would be gravely wrong to appeal to him to get an opinion on the nature of God. This is the equivalent of asking Satan how to follow holiness!! Contrary to what Balaam claims, we find it strange that Biblical prophets always called God a man (though not a human one):

And,

According to Jesus himself, him and his father were TWO MEN!! In fact when God created man, Gen. 1:26, he made him in his image and likeness. The word for image in this Hebraic verse is Tselem, here is how it is defined:

This word clearly denotes something that is the physical representation of something that existed before it. For example if a man makes a robot to look like him, we could say that this robot isn't a man (LIKE GOD ISN'T a Normal Human man) but yet is the image of a man, like Humans are the image of God.

Image is universally defined as one who is made like an exact duplicate. So while God is a man who is eternal, human beings are also men, who are finite and non-eternal. Therefore it would be appropriate to call God a man since we humans are his exact image of him. If not, then God didn't make man in his image and therefore would be considered a liar. Muslims easily confuse "man" to refer to just humans since they just assume that this always has to be the case. What they intentionally overlook is the fact that angels, also mentioned as being heavenly beings, are referred to as men:

Muslims who believe that "man" only refers to humans and not angels or God intentionally use the fallacy of "exclusion", which is leaving pertainate evidence out of the picture to fool their Christian audience. Now since God is called a man by both Jesus and the prophets, what type of man is he? Here is our answer:

The Bible reveals that God was a consuming fire but yet is called a man. Even a preschooler can see that this clearly means that God is a man who is a consuming fire compared to normal humans who are flesh and blood. This is why God can still be called a man but yet not be a human being. This simple bible study has long been lost in Islam. Since Muhammad was illiterate and obviously couldn't study the scriptures, we would expect him to make this kind of mistake. So who should we trust the prophets or Balaam a known enemy of God? Hence by siding with an unbeliever on this issue of God, Muslims explictedly affirm their belief in paganism.

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS ARGUMENT:

Show us where man in the Bible only refers to human beings alone. Since Muslims can't do this they must exclude important information to have us arrive at errorneous conclusions.

8. WE BELIEVE IN THE QURAN

RESPONSE: Any one who has talked and debated with Muslims obviously knows that this is a false argument. Muslims love to use this argument in trying to convert people to Islam. They proceed to attack the bible with the strange perception that this would somehow prove the Quran. Hence their strategy is:

PROVE THE BIBLE WRONG SO THE QURAN CAN BE CORRECT

Obviously this is a major fallacy and is called a "strawman argument" in which they weaken the argument at hand in order to prove their poing instead of answering the point directly. Muslims are also very good at utilizing the fallacy of exclusion to lie to their Christian audience. By hiding certain information they feel that this can some how prove to their potential convert that Islam is true. Lets show you just how they ignore certain important parts in the Quran:

1. First and Foremost, they claim that the Bible is corrupted. Not only is this ludicrous and incredulous, it totally ignores what the Quran says about the Bible. Here is what the Quran actually says:

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..." S. 10:94

If the Bible is corrupted or lost, this proves that Allah is telling Muhammad to verify his own message, the Quran, on a corrupted source!! Therefore by disproving the Bible you would also disprove the Quran!! Since According to modern Islam, the bible is corrupted, this would lead them to fall into the fallacy of "SUBVERTED-SUPPORT". Here the phenomenon being explained, in this case the verification test of the Quran, doesn't exist!!! Hence, we must reject the Quran as being unprovable and illogical and false since even the Quran says to judge base on previous scriptures!!

Look at this passage:

"And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM."

Here the Quran even claims that Muhammad is found in previous scriptures!! This verse mentions nothing about a Gospel or Torah "that was with them" as opposed to "IS with them". So if the Bible was lost or corrupted then we must conclude that Allah is a liar since we wouldn't be able to find Muhammad in it. If it is corrupted then it shows that Muhammad is a corrupted prophet being prophesied by a corrupted book!! Read this passage:

"And let the People of the Gospel JUDGE by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious." S. 5:50

"If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, we should have blotted out their sins and admitted them to gardens of bliss." "If only they had performed the Torah and the Gospel and all that was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above and from under their feet. Among them is a People (umma) on the right course, but evil is that which many of them do..." "Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything until you PERFORM the Torah and the Gospel, and what was revealed to you from your Lord." S. 5:68-71

Hence to accept Bible corruption, one would be force to conclude that Allah's revelations can be change by mere human beings!! What type of God is this?!!! The Quran clearly tells Christians to judge based upon what Allah revealed in it, not the Quran!! Also it says that the people of the book (Bible, Bible means book) have to perform the Torah and Gospel!! Not the Quran!!! So if the Bible is corrupted this would contradict these passages:

Therefore Muslims who believe this unQuranic theory would contradict their own book and disaffirm their belief in the Quran!! This is just fine with us since it proves that they can't even support such false polemics from their own book!! So which one is it? if the Bible is corrupted or lost then this means that the Quran is incorrect!! Look at these verses:

"God has bought from the believers their selves and their wealth, and for them is the garden (of Paradise) if they fight in the ways of God: and whether they kill or are killed, the promise of God IS true in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an, and who is more faithful to his promise than God?" S. 9:111

"To you (Muhammad) We revealed the book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands from the scripture (the Torah and Gospel), and guarding it (wa muhaiminan `alaihi)..." S. 5:51

According to the Quran, the promise of God is true in both the Torah and Gospel. Also Allah said that he revealed "THE BOOK" that is attesting to pevious truth in the Torah and Gospel. Hence who should we agree with? Muslims who claim that both are corrupted partially or fully? or the Quran? Muslims themselves can be some of the biggest hypocrites in promoting their religion since it requires believing this here and believing that over there!! These last 2 passages should drive this home:

"They (the Meccans) say, `Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?' What! Has not a clear sign come to them in what IS in the former pages (al-suhuf al-aulla )?" S. 20:133

And,

"And before thee (Muhammad), We sent no one, except men, to whom We granted revelation. ASK (plural) the people of the Scripture message, if you don't know." S. 21:7

According to the Quran clear proof of God himself is in the former scriptures of the Torah and Gospel and he even commanded Muhammad to ask the people of the scripture if he didn't know!! So much for Muslim bible corruption hoax. Need we say more? No.

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS ARGUMENT: Show us where it is okay to believe some of the Quran and disbelieve other parts to arrive at this theory. Since the Muslim can't do this we obviously see that this is some invention of modern day Muslims to counter God's word in the Bible.

9. THE UNCORRUPTED BIBLE VERSES ARE THOSE WHICH AGREE WITH THE QURAN

RESPONSE: Muslims who use this argument are intentionally twisting what their Quran says. This is the fallacy of False Dilemma in which the Muslim has intentionally limited the number of options to being either correct which agrees with the Quran or incorrect which disagrees with the Quran. An example of this is:

This fallacy is easily refuted since Muslims must believe what the Quran says or be discounted as either heretics, unbelievers or just plain liars according to their own Quran. If you look at these passages you will see that it tells Muhammad to enquire from the People of the Book (Jews, Christians) to verify the Quran itself, not the other way around. Read:

"The (Qur'an) is indeed a message for you (Muhammad) and your people, (all of) you shall be brought to account, and ASK those of our apostles whom we sent before thee, `Did We appoint any deities other than the Most Merciful whom they should worship?'" S. 43:44-45

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..." S. 10:94

"And We have not sent before you (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know." S. 16:43-44

"To Moses We gave nine clear signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel..." S. 17:101

Therefore to try and turn the Quran around and force it to say something that it never was intended to say proves that Muslims can't even trust their own god in their attempts to disprove Christianity. This also disagrees with Muhammad even further:

Here Muhammad clearly says that he believes whatever God sends down, whether the Torah, Gospel, Quran or any other book that has God's words in it. Hence, this can refer to the Epistles, or even the Hindu Vedas, since Islam claims that Allah sent messengers to all nations!! Also further study into Islamic history shows that the Bible isn't corrupted:

The corruption which Muslims clearly refer to deal with only the Arabic translations of the Torah and Gospel!! Hence the original Hebrew and Greek message of the Torah and Gospel respectively isn't corrupt and still intact!! However Muslims ignore their own history to try and promote a theory that doesn't exist!!! So if Islamic history, Quranic verses and Muhammad said that the Bible isn't corrupted, why are Muslims promoting this theory? Muhammad has the answer:

According to Muhammad himself, people who introduce theories that wasn't known by him or his companions nor his forefathers are considered lying dajjals or lying antichrists!! Let that be a note for all modern day Muslim apologists who prescribe to Bible corruption. Ibn Khazeem was the first to claim Bible corruption so are Muslims following him as a propohet of Islam? This would be in strict violation of orthodox Islam!! Need we say more? No.

10. CHRISTIANS AND JEWS SHOULD AND MUST BECOME MUSLIMS

RESPONSE: This argument is false and is the fallacy of popularity, which holds something to be true since the majority agrees with this. In this case the majority would obviously be Muslims. This argument is also false since the Quran says:

"We ordained therein for them (the Jews): `Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.' But if any one REMITS the retaliation by way of charity, it IS an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to JUDGE by what God has revealed, they are wrong-doers." S. 5:48

Here the Qur'an quotes God as repeating the law which He gave to Moses in the Torah Exodus 21:23-25 where He ordered,

"...You are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

"And let the People of the Gospel JUDGE by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious." S. 5:50

"If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, we should have blotted out their sins and admitted them to gardens of bliss." "If only they had performed the Torah and the Gospel and all that was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above and from under their feet. Among them is a People (umma) on the right course, but evil is that which many of them do..." "Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything until you PERFORM the Torah and the Gospel, and what was revealed to you from your Lord. S. 5:68-71"

In the above verses there is a continuing testimony to the presence during Muhammad's lifetime, of a true Torah and Gospel, recognized by the Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Both Jews and Christians are commanded to follow them and the Quran mentions nowhere in which it is mandatory for Christians or Jews to become Muslims. According to the Quran God will judge between them at the day of Judgment. Hence some who follow God in the Torah and Gospel will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell. Since the Gospel clearly teaches a triune God and the Quran mentions nothing on a trinity but Tritheism it makes no sense for a Christian to become a Muslim.

11. GOD IS ONE WHICH CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT HE IS JUST ONE PERSON

RESPONSE: We looked at this at the beginning of this page however this is also a very important claim and it deserves its own space here in the logical fallacy section. Here we'll examine the deceit used by Muslims to give you a better idea.

Muslims who try to use this as an argument fall under the fallacy of "Broad Definition". Here the definition includes items which should not be included. So if ONE is supposed to mean just one person and not allow for a plurality of others, then can this word be conclusive proof to show that God is just one person. As we saw above with the definition of "ONE", this is impossible. Muslims who attempt to use this argument also uses the fallacy of "begging the question" in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed by the premesis.

By assuming without any evidence that God is just one person and not a trinity, the Muslim then continues in error which next leads him into the fallacy of Exclusion. This fallacy is when one excludes importance evidence which would undermine their argument. The importance evidence that is excluded is the fact that ONE is also a unit (plural) or a group (plural) and can constitute more than one person as one.

After assuming based on false pretensis the Muslim now proceeds to document his proof by using so-called scholarly evidence. This approach is called "appealing to Dubious Authority" because the people in whom they quote aren't experts in the field or they already have presumptions based on non-evidences. Such examples of these dubious authorites are:

If a Christian ever used this same method against Islam, they would be quickly rejected and labled as being unfair. The problem with these sources is the fact that 1. They assume that the definition of ONE means one person (Exception may include Anti-Christian authors, Atheists) 2. Their beliefs aren't orthodox and is based on recent heretical and presumptious and known biased thinking (Jehovah Witness and Oneness Pentacostals are notorious for this) 3. Or they read their religious belief back into the text of the bible without letting the Bible speak for itself (Muslims for example already believe that God is one person so they read this back into the text).

To prove that God is one person you can't assume that ONE means just one person. For example, the famous verse that these anti-triniarians appeal to is Deuteronomy 6:4, famously known as the Shema:

According to them this is sufficient enough to prove that God is just one person. They even quote Jesus saying this in Mark 12:29 to the Pharasies. The problem with this is God is one what? Person, unit, Group, etc? To assume that God is one person would exclude the other defintions of one and would be a false argument. If God wanted to say that he was one person only here is how he would've put it:

Or

If God wanted to prove that he was just one person he would've used Yachid to express this important information. Therefore Muslims and anti-trinitarians base their whole opinion on nothing but assumptions.

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS CLAIM: Tell them to show you exactly where God says that he is just one person. ONE has never meant just ONE person only. If we use their methodology then we can say that Jesus is God by using this verse:

By using this verse, we could claim that the ONE GOD in heaven would be Jesus, if God was one person!!! Therefore by ascribing to their fallacies, this idiology can easily be turned against them.

12. JESUS WAS APPEARED TO BE CRUCIFIED EVEN THOUGH IT NEVER HAPPENED

RESPONSE: For a book that claims to be a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds we are shocked to see that this contradictoring fairytale is present in the Quran. Not only do Muslims misinteprete the Quran, which we will later discuss, they also utilize major logical fallacies in ascribing to the theory that the crucifixion never happened and it appeared to be Jesus.

The first of these fallacies is obviously "Begging the Question". We showed that Begging the question was assuming a conclusion by the premesis now lets give you some more examples of this fallacy:

Examples:

(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

(ii) We know that Jesus was never crucified, since the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified.
What the Quran says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God says that Jesus was never crucified in order to believe that God wrote the Quran.)

The way to disprove this phony theory is to show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true. Therefore we must agree that the Quran is true by already beliving that the crucifixion never happened. This is the equivalent of putting the horse before the cart or trying buy gas before buying a car.

What is intruiging is the fact that Muslims deny any other religion's followers to do the same thing. Hence they don't care if you say the Bible is God's word because it says so however they apply this same idiology with the Quran. Hypocracy at its best!! As they proceed with their argument, next they began to fall into the fallacy of "untestability".

This greatly exposes them since you will see that their disbelief of the crucifixion stems from the fallacy of "False Dilemma" (explained above in this page) which leads to them to conclude from a circular argument "Jesus wasn't crucified since the Quran says so". Hence we have started where we began, "How exactly can you prove that he wasn't crucified". Therefore by appealing to an unproven source the question, which they feel is answered, is actually unanswered.

Next the Quran claims that those who disagree with this conclusion are in doubt and they have no knowledge except for conjecture. However the problem with this quick conclusion is the fact that Allah in the Quran has presented nothing but conjecture which logically would produce more conjecture. Also anybody can see that this "no knowledge" stems from the fact that Allah nor Muhammad in their infinite or should I say idiotic wisdom, fell to explain to us what happened to Jesus and who was it that was appeared to be crucified. Hence, we run into more problems and theories from a book which claims to be clear proof from the lord of the worlds!!

Also Muhammad and Allah felled to inform us what exactly were we disagreeing over? Was it Jesus who was never crucified or was it the fact that the Jews didn't kill the Messiah or was it the idea as to who was substituted for Jesus? Again they fell to inform us of such important information. Strange isn't it?!!

So by inventing a strawman argument (another fallacy) to go along with these existing fallacies, this seems to be the best way that an all mighty god of Muhammad can explain away the crucifixion of Christ. What is hilarious is the fact that the Quran wastes so much time on insignificant issues for mankind and devoting entire surahs on Muhammad, whom he should marry, Abu Lahab, along with Muhammad wrapping himself in cloaks!! Lets look at some of this wasteful surahs:

Why is there more information dealing with compainions of elephants and Muhammad's uncle than with Jesus crucifixion? It seems that the Quran cares more about Muhammad's contemporary time than it does about the weight of millions of people's faith in the crucifixion!!! How exactly does these two above surahs benefit Mankind? So when we need guidance and help are we supposed to go and read on Muhammad's uncle or read about elephants now? Amazing!!!

What makes the Muslim argument absolutely fallicious about the crucifixion is the fact that we must believe that every one who witnessed the crucifixion experienced some type of hallucination. This seems strange to the intellectual Non-Muslim due to the fact that the only way Muhammad's pagan god can explain away with clear proof is to use the fallacy of "Subverted support" in which the phenomenon being explained doesn't exist!!

Examples

(i) The reason why most bachelors are timid is that their mothers were domineering.
(This attempts to explain why most bachelors are timid. However, it is not the case that most bachelors are timid.)

(ii) John went to the store because he wanted to see Maria.
(This is a fallacy if, in fact, John went to the library.)

(iii) The reason why most people oppose the strike is that they are afraid of losing their jobs.
(This attempts to explain why workers oppose the strike. But suppose they just voted to continue the strike, Then in fact, they don't oppose the strike. [This sounds made up, but it actually happened.])

The Quranic equivalent: The reason Jesus was never crucified is because God didn't want him to die. (This attempts to explain why God opposed Jesus death. But suppose that Jesus asked God to take him up, this would prove that God didn't oppose his death)

The explanation is fallacious if the phenomenon does not actually happen of if there is no evidence that it does happen. Hence in the case of the alleged disappearance of Jesus, there is no evidence that this phenomenon occured.

Muslims who prescibe to this theory actually exposes their Quran as a fraud do to the fact that they would imply that Muhammad was influenced by heretic Christian groups found only in Arabia:

If Muslims such As Yusif Ali, hold to the theory that Christ was never crucified and a substitution or it was made to appear that he did, they explictedly prove that the Quran borrowed this idea from heretic Christian sects!!! The only ones to ever come up with this kind of thinking were heretics and we find it unbelievable that Muhammad is including them in the Quran without even knowing that these were fables!! This is hilarious since it would prove that Muhammad's thinking about the crucifixion stems from what he saw in the pagan and heritical sand heaps of Arabia!!!

Here we have Allah, lord of the worlds copying from apocraphyl gospels (Gospel of Barnabas) as well as trying to refute heritical Christian sects!!! What brings us to more problems deals with this part of the verse of Surah 4:157, in which all this information comes from. Why would the Jews "boast" that they killed the Messiah? Think about it for a minute. The Jewish followers of Jesus did not kill him. In fact, they were horrified when he was put to death. The Jewish enemies of Jesus were certainly happy to have Him out of their way, but they would never have called him the Messiah or a "Messenger" of God since they viewed such statements as blasphemy! Again this is another situation not resolved by Allah, the greatest of devisors.

By misinterpreting the Quran Muslims lead us down the road which points to their divine book being plagerized by apocraphyl fables, false hertic doctrines and proving that Muhammad took tales of ancients and added them as a revelation from God. However two Quranic and Arabic experts, Abu Samad and Nayeem Akhtar M.D. exposes this heretical thinking of "JESUS NEVER BEING CRUCIFIED OR SUBSTITUTED". We began with their analysis:

Here they introduce us to the popular theories prescribed by Muslims in trying to interpret S. 4:157. They continue by saying:

They point out that incorrect translation of the verse can lead to false theories and unQuranic propogation. Since Most Muslims aren't Arab speaking, we see that this fact does hold to be true. For those who are Arab speaking and prescribe to Jesus being substituted, they are intentionally being deceitful.

Here the authors expose where Muslims have intentionally cut off the sentence to arrive at the fact that jesus wasn't crucified or was substituted.

The words in S. 4:157 clearly mean death or crucifixion and not all of these strange theories proposed by modern Muslim apologists.

According to these scholars the correct way to inteprete the Quran is the fact that Jesus was put on the cross and hanged to be crucified but yet he didn't die since the Jews didn't verify his death. Hence they couldn't crucify him. They offer more explanations and rebuttals to the substitution theory however this still would leave us with a contradition in the Quran since in other places it claims that Jesus did die while S. 4:157 claims that he doesn't.S. 4:157 does not deny Jesus' crucifixion, but simply denies that it was the Jews who were responsible for the crucifixion. This interpretation is consistent with the Quran itself, as the following passage demonstrates:

Compared to

Hence, it wasn't the Jews who crucified Christ but God's set purpose which allowed Christ to be crucified. This is precisely what the Bible teaches:

If this view is correct, then Muslims should have no objections to Jesus' death and resurrection. Since the Quran intepretation of the Quran clearly shows this matter. One Muslim writer elaborates on this in great detail:

So in light of S. 8:17 are we now supposed to say that Muhammad nor the Muslims didn't throw rocks or slew the unbelievers? If we hold to Muslims thinking with S. 4:157 this would be what we would have to conclude! So if Muhammad wasn't throwing was Allah throwing as Muhammad now? Or was Muhammad Allah? Was Allah the Muslims now? If we hold to the correct intepretation then Jesus was crucified in the Quran but the Jews didn't crucify him since it was already in God's divine plan to fool them from the beginning.

We see that the Quran brings more problems than solutions dealing with the crucifixion. If it was a book of such clear proof than it wouldn't expose itself to heretic and apocraphyl ideas nor would it leave Muslim scholars with such strange and crazy theories. Why does this occur? Because of the illogicallness of islam.

Quennel Gale at queball23@yahoo.com  

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section.