Mohammed Hijab

How misused: Repeatedly claims these verses predict the coming of Muhammad (as 'Ahmad' or the 'Comforter') instead of the Holy Spirit. This is a common Islamic apologetic misinterpretation of the Greek term 'parakletos'.

Scripture's answer: The Greek word 'parakletos' refers to an 'advocate,' 'comforter,' or 'helper.' Jesus explicitly identifies this Paraclete as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), who will teach, remind, and testify about Jesus, and will indwell believers. The text gives no indication of a future human prophet. The Spirit's arrival was witnessed at Pentecost (Acts 2), fulfilling Jesus' promise. No reputable Greek scholarship supports the translation of 'parakletos' as 'Ahmad' or Muhammad.

How misused: Uses Jesus' statement, 'But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,' to argue Jesus cannot be God because he lacks omniscience.

Scripture's answer: This verse is understood within orthodox Christian theology through the doctrine of the hypostatic union and kenosis. As fully God and fully man, Jesus voluntarily limited the exercise of His divine attributes, including omniscience, during His earthly incarnation to fully identify with humanity (Philippians 2:6-8). His divine nature remained omniscient, but His human nature experienced limitation. This does not negate His divinity but rather demonstrates His humility and complete embodiment of humanity while on earth. To be limited in knowledge in His human capacity does not mean His divine person lacks knowledge. Jesus elsewhere demonstrates divine knowledge and claims attributes unique to God (e.g., John 8:58, John 10:30, John 17:5).

How misused: Misrepresents Augustine's interpretation, alleging he 'rearranged the words' to fit Trinitarian theology and that the verse proves a Unitarian God by saying, 'And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.'

Scripture's answer: John 17:3 is Jesus' High Priestly Prayer, where He addresses the Father as 'the only true God.' However, this does not exclude Jesus' own divinity, as He is explicitly presented throughout John's Gospel as equally divine (e.g., John 1:1, 1:18, 5:18, 8:58, 10:30, 20:28). The verse distinguishes the Father as 'the only true God' in His unique role as Father, not in exclusion of the Son's co-equality in divinity. Orthodox Christian theology affirms one God existing in three persons, where the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. Augustine did not 'rearrange' the words; he interpreted them within the broader Trinitarian understanding of Scripture. No credible textual variants support a change in this verse by Augustine.

How misused: Mohammed Hijab misinterprets Numbers 31:18 ('but save for yourselves every female child who has not known a man by sleeping with him') to accuse Jesus (as part of the Trinity) of commanding or condoning pedophilia, specifically to defend Aisha's age of marriage.

Scripture's answer: Numbers 31:18, in its original context, is part of a command related to spoils of war against the Midianites, a highly specific and punitive military action under the Old Covenant concerning a particularly corrupt people. It refers to young virgins being taken captive, not for sexual exploitation, but into servitude within the Israelite community (Numbers 31:35), where they would be assimilated, likely through marriage once of age, but always under the Mosaic Law's protections against sexual abuse and pedophilia (e.g., Deuteronomy 22:13-29 concerning marriageable age and consent). Furthermore, Jesus lived under and upheld the Mosaic Law, which prohibited incest, pedophilia, and sexual immorality (Leviticus 18, 20). To claim this passage commands pedophilia, or that Jesus (who is not mentioned in the passage, and whose divine role was not active in this specific Mosaic command in the same way) condoned it, is a gross misrepresentation of biblical law, historical context, and Christian theology.

How misused: Mohammed Hijab dismisses belief in one God as insufficient, stating 'Even demons believe in one God (James 2:19),' yet then posits Islamic monotheism as inherently superior. This dismissal is used to criticize Unitarian beliefs or incomplete understandings of God, while failing to acknowledge the Trinitarian nature of the one God affirmed in Christianity.

Scripture's answer: James 2:19 ('You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!') teaches that mere intellectual assent to monotheism is not saving faith. This verse is used in Christianity to emphasize that true faith involves trust, obedience, and works, not just intellectual acknowledgement. While Mohammed Hijab uses it to argue against a shallow Unitarianism, he misapplies it to dismiss Christian monotheism (which is Trinitarian, not Unitarian in the Islamic sense) and to validate Islamic monotheism as a sufficient condition for truth. Christian Trinitarianism affirms one God, not three, but existing in three persons.

How misused: Mohammed Hijab takes Revelation 2:23 ('and I will strike her children dead') completely out of its symbolic and prophetic context, using it to portray Jesus as a violent figure who literally kills women and children, thereby attempting to contrast Him unfavorably with Muhammad.

Scripture's answer: Revelation 2:23 is a prophetic warning of divine judgment against 'Jezebel' (a symbolic false prophetess in the church of Thyatira) and her followers. The phrase 'I will strike her children dead' is symbolic language for the spiritual and physical consequences of idolatry and immorality, referring to her spiritual offspring or those influenced by her false teachings, not a literal act of infanticide by Jesus Himself. It is a declaration of divine justice against spiritual corruption, not a description of Jesus physically harming innocent children. To interpret it literally to accuse Jesus of violence against women and children is a gross misrepresentation of biblical apocalyptic literature and Christian theology, which understands Jesus as the righteous judge of all.

How misused: Mohammed Hijab misrepresents Jesus' interaction with the Canaanite woman, claiming Jesus was racist or dehumanized her by calling her a 'dog' ('It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs'), to argue that the New Testament portrays Jesus as racist and diminish Gentiles.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' interaction with the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28) is often misunderstood if taken superficially. The term 'dogs' (κυνάρια - kynaria) used here refers to 'house dogs' or 'little dogs,' not wild scavengers, and is a milder term than the derogatory 'wild dogs' (κύων - kyōn). Jesus was testing her faith, not expressing racism. Her persistent faith, even in humility, leads Him to praise her and grant her request, demonstrating His universal compassion and willingness to minister to Gentiles. This passage, far from showing Jesus as racist, highlights His power and grace extending beyond Israel to those of sincere faith, fulfilling His mission to be a light to the Gentiles. The narrative ultimately celebrates her faith and Jesus's universal compassion, not His prejudice.