Comparative Religion

The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) declares 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.' Exodus 20:3 commands 'You shall have no other gods before me.' Isaiah 43:11 states 'I, even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no saviour.' Isaiah 44:6 says 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.' These passages use singular pronouns and emphatic language that leaves no room for a multi-personal God.

Elohim is a plural of majesty (pluralis majestatis), not a numerical plural. Hebrew grammar uses this for singular referents — the verb forms used with Elohim when referring to God are consistently singular. When Elohim refers to pagan gods as a true plural, the verbs are plural. The scholarly consensus is that this is a grammatical feature, not a theological one.

Paul's writings treat Jesus as subordinate to the Father — 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes 'one God, the Father' from 'one Lord, Jesus Christ.' In John 17:3, Jesus himself defines eternal life as knowing 'the only true God' — the Father — and Jesus Christ whom he sent, making a clear distinction. Mark 12:29 records Jesus affirming the Shema: the Lord our God is one Lord. Even the Trinitarian proof-text Matthew 28:19 ('baptising in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit') appears in a form that Luke 9:26 and Acts 2:38 contradict.

The 'Spirit of God' (ruach Elohim) in Genesis 1:2 means 'wind of God' or 'breath of God' in Hebrew — ruach is the standard word for wind/breath. Most Hebrew scholars read this as a description of the primordial state, not a second divine person. 'Let us make man in our image' (Genesis 1:26) is the plural of majesty — God speaking in royal plural, which is standard in ancient Near Eastern royal language. The very next verse (1:27) switches to singular: 'So God created man in His own image.'

Emmanuel means 'God is with us' — it's a theophoric name, not an ontological claim. Hebrew names routinely contain God's name: Elijah ('my God is Yahweh'), Daniel ('God is my judge'). Nobody claims Elijah is literally Yahweh because of his name. Similarly, 'Mighty God' in Isaiah 9:6 is debated — the Hebrew 'El Gibbor' can refer to a mighty hero or ruler. Even if it means 'Mighty God,' the same title is applied to human judges in Psalm 82.

The Quran is an attribute of God (kalaam Allah — God's speech), not a separate entity or person. An attribute is not a person. God's knowledge is eternal, God's power is eternal — but no one calls God's power a 'second god.' The hadith about the Quran interceding uses metaphorical language about the Day of Judgement — just as good deeds 'intercede' for a person. The Christian Logos doctrine says the Word is a person who became incarnate — the Quran is not a person and did not become incarnate.

Abraham and Ishmael built the Ka'bah according to both Islamic tradition and the Quran (2:127). That pagans later corrupted monotheistic worship does not make the original practice pagan — Muhammad restored what Abraham established. By this logic, Christianity's December 25th celebration, Easter eggs, church steeples, and the concept of a dying-and-rising God could all be called pagan borrowings from Roman religion.

Wood's side often claims Surah 5:116 gets the Trinity wrong by including Mary. But the verse is asking Jesus whether he told people to worship him and his mother as gods — it's addressing actual historical practices (Marian veneration in certain Christian sects, the Collyridians), not defining the formal Trinitarian creed. The Quran is correcting popular Christian practice, not misunderstanding Nicene theology.

If all three persons are co-equal, there should be no hierarchy of blasphemy. Yet Jesus himself ranks the Spirit above the Son in terms of blasphemy. This suggests the early Christians did not view the Son and Spirit as co-equal — the Spirit had a different, possibly higher, status.

An omniscient God cannot not-know something. If Jesus is fully God, he must know everything God knows. But he explicitly says he does not know the hour of judgement. This is not 'choosing not to use omniscience' — he says he does not know. This is a definitive statement of Jesus's non-omniscience, and therefore his non-divinity.

Justin Martyr explicitly says that Christianity's claims are similar to the sons of Zeus — he draws the parallel himself in his First Apology. He says 'when we say Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding the sons of Jupiter.' Justin is conceding the pagan parallel, not distinguishing from it. This is the earliest Trinitarian-adjacent Father admitting the direct line to Greek mythology.

If the Bible is God's word, God endorsed the killing of babies. This is not an argument about Trinity directly, but about the authority of the text from which Trinitarian proof-texts are drawn. If the OT contains morally repugnant passages, its theological authority is compromised.

The Islamic position is not that Ebionites were perfect Muslims — it's that their monotheism was closer to the truth than later Trinitarian theology. Islam came to correct all previous distortions. The Ebionites are evidence that the earliest Jesus followers were monotheists who did not worship Jesus — the deification was a later innovation. That the details of Ebionite theology differ from Islam is irrelevant; the point is about the trajectory from monotheism to Trinity being a theological drift.

I want to extend an olive branch. We will disagree on theology — and that is fine. But Muslims and Christians worship the same God, as the Quran says: 'Our God and your God is one' (29:46). We share more in common than we have in difference: belief in God, accountability, moral responsibility, love for Jesus, and respect for the prophetic tradition. Let us debate honestly but remain brothers in our shared humanity.

This actually reinforces the Islamic point: the Old Testament prohibits consuming blood, yet Christianity overrides this prohibition by claiming a new dispensation. This pattern — where later Christian theology overrides explicit Old Testament commands — is exactly how the Trinity emerged. The original monotheistic command ('the Lord is one') was overridden by a later Trinitarian dispensation. Christianity's entire theological method involves superseding what was clearly established.

As Muslims, we believe Moses received the Torah from God and Jesus received the Injil (Gospel). However, the question is whether what exists today as the Bible is that same preserved revelation. If the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot contain internal contradictions — because God does not contradict Himself. I will present clear contradictions from within the Bible itself, using its own text, to demonstrate that what we have today has been altered by human hands.

That's exactly the point. As Muslims, we don't say the original Torah or the original Gospel were not from God — we say they were. But we say the text has been changed over time by human hands. You just admitted that copyist errors exist. Once you concede that, you've conceded my entire argument: the Bible as it exists today is not identical to what was originally revealed. The question is not whether the 'message' survived — the question is whether the text is the unchanged Word of God. And the answer, by your own scholars' admission, is no.

Let's apply the same standard to the Bible. Genesis 25:20 states that Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah. Now, Rashi — the most authoritative Jewish commentator on the Torah, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040-1105 CE) — provides a detailed chronological calculation in his commentary on Genesis 25:20. Using the timeline established in Genesis 22 and Genesis 23, Rashi calculates that Rebekah was born when Isaac was 37 years old — the same event timeline as the Binding of Isaac (Aqedah) and Sarah's death at age 127 (Genesis 23:1). Since Isaac married at 40 (Genesis 25:20), and Rebekah was born when Isaac was 37, Rashi concludes that Rebekah was THREE YEARS OLD when Isaac married her.

In Jewish law derived from the Talmud and rabbinic tradition, the age of three is explicitly discussed as the age at which a girl is considered fit for marriage (kiddushin). This is not a fringe opinion — it is discussed in mainstream Jewish legal works. Rashi's calculation that Rebekah was three when she married Isaac is consistent with this legal framework. The point is that if you want to criticise the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ for Aisha's age — which, as I showed, is not even from the Prophet ﷺ directly and varies between 6 and 7 — then you need to address why your own most authoritative commentator says a three-year-old was married in the Torah.

You just established exactly my point. You said Rashi is a commentator, not the Bible itself — so you can reject his interpretation. I'm saying the exact same thing about the hadith on Aisha's age. The age of Aisha is NOT in the Quran — it's in hadith narrations attributed to a Companion, not even to the Prophet ﷺ. If you get to reject secondary sources about your scripture (Rashi on the Torah), then we can point out that the age of Aisha is itself from a secondary source (hadith, not Quran). You cannot use a double standard — accepting the right to reject your commentators while demanding we accept ours uncritically.

Genesis 24:16 says Rebekah was a 'virgin; neither had any man known her.' It describes her at a well, carrying a pitcher. You argue a three-year-old can't do this. But the text doesn't state her age — so what age do YOU say she was? Give me a biblical verse that states Rebekah's age at marriage. You can't — because there isn't one. Rashi calculated it from the biblical timeline. You reject his calculation but have no alternative age from scripture. Meanwhile, Genesis 25:20 clearly states Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah, and the chronological events of Genesis 22-23 (Binding of Isaac, Abraham's notification of Rebekah's birth, Sarah's death at 127) are right there in the text. Rashi didn't invent the timeline — he calculated from it.

The Protoevangelium of James — one of the earliest Christian texts, attributed to James the brother of Jesus — records that Mary was placed in the Temple at the age of 3 and remained there until she was 12, at which point the priests arranged for her marriage to Joseph. This text was widely circulated in the early Church and is accepted as historically significant by Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Christian traditions. The Catholic Encyclopedia also cites Mary's age as 12 at the time of her marriage.

The Historia Josephi Fabri Lignarii — the History of Joseph the Carpenter — is a manuscript held in the National Library of France, composed in Byzantine Egypt around the 6th century. It records that Joseph was married to his first wife for 40 years, was a widower for 49 years, and then married Mary — making him approximately 90 years old when he married 12-year-old Mary. So according to the earliest Christian biographical tradition, Mary was 12 and Joseph was 90. This is the tradition of the very people who wrote about Jesus and his family. If someone attacks the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ over Aisha's age, they must reckon with their own tradition: a 90-year-old man marrying a 12-year-old girl.

Numbers 31:17-18 records Moses commanding: 'Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.' The virgin girls — 'women children' in the KJV — were kept alive for the Israelite soldiers. The text does not specify their age, but describes them as children who had not known a man. Additionally, Judges 21:10-12 records the Israelites taking 400 young virgins from Jabesh-Gilead for the Benjamites who needed wives. These passages demonstrate that taking young virgins — including through warfare — was an accepted practice in the Old Testament, commanded or sanctioned by biblical figures.

The standard must be applied consistently. If you say 'only the Bible matters, not commentators' — then the age of Aisha should not be used against Islam either, because it's not in the Quran (our scripture) and not even from the Prophet ﷺ directly. If you say 'secondary sources and historical tradition also count' — then you have to deal with Rashi saying Rebekah was 3, the Protoevangelium of James saying Mary was 12, the History of Joseph saying Joseph was 90, and Numbers 31:17-18 commanding the keeping of virgin children. Either way, the attack fails. You cannot accept secondary sources when they support your position and reject them when they undermine it. That is a textbook double standard.

You just said you only accept the Bible — not commentators, not extra-biblical sources. You rejected Rashi and the Protoevangelium. But the hadith about Aisha's age is the Islamic equivalent of what you just rejected — it's not in our scripture (the Quran), and it's not even a direct statement of the Prophet ﷺ. By your own standard — 'only scripture counts' — you have no basis to attack Islam on Aisha's age, because it is not in our scripture. You've refuted your own argument. Furthermore, the Bible itself does not give Rebekah's age, so you have no idea how old she was — you just know Isaac was 40 (Genesis 25:20). And Numbers 31:17-18 IS in your Bible — that's not a commentary or an extra-biblical source. Moses commanding soldiers to keep virgin children for themselves is right there in your scripture.

Ezekiel 16:4-8 is a passage where God uses a metaphor describing Jerusalem as a girl whom He found as a newborn, raised her, and when she 'came to the age of love' — described as the time her 'breasts were formed and hair had grown' — He spread His garment over her (a marriage metaphor). The description of physical development is that of a very young girl reaching early puberty. This is God Himself using the imagery of marrying a girl who has just reached physical maturity — which in that era meant 11 to 13 years old. The passage reinforces that early marriage at the onset of puberty was the accepted norm in the biblical worldview.

We have examined the death of King Saul — three contradictory accounts within the same Bible. We looked at the age of King Ahaziah — 22 in one book, 42 in another, with your own scholars admitting it's a copyist error. We examined the genealogy of Jesus — Joseph has two different fathers, the line goes through two different sons of David, and Zerubbabel's father contradicts 1 Chronicles. These are not matters of interpretation or translation — they are factual contradictions within the text itself. If the Bible were the perfectly preserved Word of God, these contradictions would not exist. As Muslims, we honour the original Torah and Gospel as divine revelation — but the evidence shows that what exists today has been altered by human hands. The Quran, by contrast, has been preserved letter-for-letter since its revelation, verified by an unbroken chain of memorization (hifz) spanning 1400 years.