As a Muslim, I strive to practice my faith sincerely, though I don’t always consider myself strictly devout in every aspect of daily life. I perform the prayers, observe fasting, and often find comfort and inspiration in Islamic contents. Yet, like many believers, I sometimes experience spiritual lows, especially during emotionally difficult periods.
I find it odd, yet strangely honest, that during my lowest moments, sometimes I don’t only question my own faith—I also find myself interrogating the foundations of other beliefs. Perhaps it’s because, when the heart is hurting, it seeks not just comfort, but clarity. And clarity often comes through contrast.
These are the theological questions that have always intrigued me:
Jesus Is God?
If Jesus is truly God, then why did He pray to God? And why did the atonement for sin require such brutal suffering? Couldn’t God, in His infinite power, have simply said, “You are forgiven,” and that alone would suffice? After all, nothing is impossible for the Almighty.
Surely, I can’t be the only one who has been haunted by these questions.
Common sense logic: It’s confusing
Using basic logic, an all-powerful God should be able to simply say:
“Be—and it is. Human sins are forgiven. Done.”
But the Christian narrative tells a different story. God becomes human (Jesus), suffers, is tortured, and dies on the cross to redeem sin. Along the way (during the crucifixion), Jesus prays to God—which implies He isn’t God (or was He “talking to Himself”?).
This concept feels paradoxical. God sacrifices Himself to Himself to fulfill His own justice in order to save His own creation. This is called “God’s love and justice.” But is it, really?
From the Islamic perspective of Tawhid (Oneness of God), this is inconsistent because:
- God is One and indivisible.
- God does not need to incarnate to save.
- God does not require suffering as a means to forgive.
Depictions of Jesus
A self-proclaimed “traditionalist” Christian (@trad_west_) blocked me on Twitter—simply because he couldn’t argue or think critically? Blocking was his answer. Classic.
I had previously written about visual portrayals of Jesus in my article titled “Jesus Was a Brown-Skinned Man from Southwest Asia: A Hard Slap in the Face to a Racist World”, but I realize now that it didn’t go far enough. I revisited @trad_west_’s page and found a pinned post that read, “You might not like it, but this is how Jesus Christ actually looked like.” Oh, seriously? Let me explain why I don’t “like” that depiction—because it’s not about taste, it’s about truth.
The Holy Shroud of Turin is real. Jesus Christ IS God. pic.twitter.com/WHhmyzXVTG
— Trad West (@trad_west_) July 26, 2025
The image in the upper-right corner of that poster is widely circulated and often promoted by traditional Christians as “the real face of Jesus.” It’s a 6th-century Byzantine icon known as Christ Pantocrator, discovered at Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, Egypt—one of the oldest Christian monasteries in the world. Its artist remains unknown, likely a monk-iconographer working within a sacred tradition.
Byzantine iconography is known for its stylized features—stiff expressions, large eyes, golden backgrounds, and divine authority symbolism. But was this truly Jesus’ face? No. It’s not a portrait from life; it’s a theological construct—made 500 years after Jesus died—based on church tradition and Byzantine artistic norms, not eyewitness memory.
And the distorted, ghostly image beside it? That’s the Shroud of Turin—a famous cloth many claim was Jesus’ burial shroud. But from a scientific and historical standpoint, there are strong reasons to believe it’s not from the 1st century but rather the medieval era.
This linen cloth, roughly 4 meters long and 1 meter wide, shows a faint image of a bearded man with signs of crucifixion—crossed hands, blood stains, and wounds. It’s kept in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy—hence its name.
The Shroud first appeared in public in 1354 CE in France. There’s no historical record or documentation of it prior to the 14th century. In 1988, three independent labs (Oxford, Zurich, and Arizona) performed carbon dating tests on the cloth. The results? It dates to 1260–1390 CE—not the 1st century. The Shroud is not a relic from Jesus’ time—it’s a medieval European artifact.
Now imagine this, someone in Jesus’ era carefully preserved his burial cloth for over a thousand years, but not a single record of it exists in the first few centuries of Christianity? Not even a mention? That’s odd, isn’t it?
Now look at the left image, that is a forensic reconstruction—produced in 2001 by British archaeologists and anthropologists (BBC)—based on the DNA of ancient Judeans, Semitic traits from the Middle East, and the environmental conditions of 1st-century Palestine. That’s why this version of Jesus has darker skin, coarse curly hair, and a broad face—far more historically plausible, though unpopular in the West.
In fact, this more realistic Jesus resembles Middle Eastern Jews of the time—but he’s often rejected because he doesn’t fit the Western imagination. Jesus was never painted during his lifetime. All visual depictions emerged centuries later—based not on truth, but on theology, cultural preference, and imagination.
Historical Facts:
- Jesus lived in the 1st century CE: He lived within a Jewish tradition that strictly forbade depictions of God and prophets—just like Islam today. The Gospels give no detailed physical description—no height, eye color, or skin tone.
- Visual depictions emerged only centuries later: Christian iconography began developing around the 4th century CE—after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and integrated it into Roman political structures. Before that, early Christians avoided direct images of Jesus.
- Jesus was adapted to local cultures: In Europe, he’s white-skinned with light brown hair and soft features. In Africa, he’s often portrayed as Black. In China, Jesus appears with Asian features. Each culture molded him to reflect themselves—not historical fact.
- Why did it begin only after his death? Because Jesus wasn’t a political figure, there was no need for “official” portraits. Early Christianity prioritized preaching, not painting. And Jewish-Christian traditions discouraged image worship—until that changed under Roman-Byzantine influence.
The Jesus we see today is not the Jesus of history. The further we move from his time, the more polished and Westernized the images become—and the less accurate.
The person who posted that image insists that Jesus looked like the version on the right. But as I’ve explained, that icon was made in the 6th century. He harshly rejects forensic science—even though historical evidence points to Jesus being a typical Judean man of the region, not a white European. He worships Jesus, insists the image is accurate, yet refuses to accept the lack of historical evidence.
So what happens when someone worships an image of Jesus while rejecting the historical reality of him?
They’re not worshipping the Jesus of history—they’re worshipping an imagined Jesus. One with pale skin, long flowing hair, and soft European features—crafted by medieval artists, not described in any Gospel or contemporary account.
Jesus becomes less a divine figure and more a reflection of Western culture. In truth, what’s being worshipped is not God incarnate, but cultural nostalgia and aesthetic preference.
Why the hostility toward forensic reconstructions?
Because historical truth threatens spiritual comfort. If Jesus looked more like an Arab or ancient Semitic man, then the “white European Jesus” in their churches and homes isn’t accurate. Their beloved “King Jesus” with soft features is a myth.
The rejection of evidence isn’t about truth—it’s about emotional loss. Losing a comfortable symbol is often harder than facing reality.
And besides, if Jesus truly didn’t want to be worshipped through images or idols, why would he leave his face imprinted on a cloth to become an object of veneration? In Islam, the veneration of cloths, relics, and images like this is strictly forbidden—because it opens the door to worshipping creation instead of the Creator.
The Birth of Jesus
If Jesus is God and He was born in the year 1 CE, then who created the universe, Adam, and even Mary before His birth? Upon closer examination, this forms a theological domino effect that collapses one argument after another.
Jesus was born around the year 1 CE
According to Christian tradition, Jesus was born of Mary, lived as a human being, began His ministry at the age of 30, and was crucified and resurrected around the age of 33. That means, before 1 CE, Jesus as a human being did not yet exist.
However, Christians claim: “Jesus existed before creation.” To avoid logical inconsistencies, Christian theologians assert:
“Jesus is the Word (Logos), a part of the eternal God, and has existed from the beginning.”
They often cite:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1
According to this view, what was born in 1 CE was merely His human form (the incarnation), while His essence as the Word had existed from the very beginning.
But here’s where the problem becomes more complex: if Jesus (the Son) is part of God from the beginning, and then became a baby, nursed by Mary, and grew up...
We still face the unavoidable question: Who created Mary, if the One to be born from her womb was God Himself? Did God create His own mother? Did He create the first human (Adam), only to be born thousands of years later as a man? Did He wait for millennia before “saving” the world?
Here is where the logic begins to collapse:
- An eternal God suddenly being born from the womb of a woman.
- An Almighty God becoming a helpless infant.
- The Creator of all things entering creation after everything else.
- Who was governing the universe while God was in the womb?
This problem does not exist in Islam, because the concept of God in Islam is clear:
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ
“He neither begets nor is born.”
The Holy Qur’an 112:3
God (Allah) created Adam, the universe, and Mary — all through His eternal power. There is no need for any part of God to be born, die, or transform into a human. There is no confusion between the Creator and the created.
How can someone be considered God if their existence began in the womb of their own creation? And if the response is:
“It’s a mystery of faith, it cannot be explained...”
Then that is not an answer — it is an escape from reason. Yet God — who endowed us with intellect — would not ask us to accept something that fundamentally contradicts that very intellect.
Moreover, no human being considers themselves greater than their mother. By nature, a mother’s dignity is held higher than that of her child.
So if Mary gave birth to God, then she is the mother of God. This raises the question: does that make Mary greater than Jesus?
If Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, then Mary is the Mother of God. But by human instinct, a child is never more honorable than their mother. So does that mean Mary holds a higher rank than God Himself?
If that were true, then God would be subject to His own creation. The glory of the Creator would be placed beneath the glory of a woman He created Himself. Now consider what the Catholic Church teaches:
In official doctrine, Mary is called Theotokos — “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” In many Catholic traditions, she is even referred to as the Queen of Heaven.
Some believers pray directly to Mary and consider her a mediator of salvation. If Mary could give birth to God, become the source of His human body, His caretaker, and protector during infancy — then is she, implicitly, of higher status than the one she gave birth to?
Let’s return to simple common sense:
- A mother is the one who carries, nurtures, breastfeeds, and protects. All of that is only possible if the child is fully dependent.
- So if Jesus is God, that means Mary gave birth to God, breastfed God, cleaned God of infant impurities.
Does that make sense?
None of this occurs in Islam
Islam clearly affirms that Mary is the most honored and pure woman — yet she remains a servant of God. Jesus is a chosen prophet and messenger — not God.
Therefore, there is no conflict between the honor of Mary and the divinity of Jesus — because Jesus is not divine. There is no need to call Mary the "Mother of God," because God was not born.
قَالَتْ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِي وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ ۖ قَالَ كَذَٰلِكِ اللَّهُ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ
“She (Mary) said, ‘My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?’ Gabriel said, ‘Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.’”
The Holy Qur’an 3:47
No human being ever considers themselves greater than their own mother. Yet in Christianity, God was born of a human being.
This logical dilemma cannot be solved by the doctrine of the Trinity. Because once Jesus is declared God, believers are trapped in an irreconcilable paradox: How can a human mother predate the God she gave birth to?
Before God Was “Born,” Who Did the Prophets Pray To?
This isn’t meant to be a sarcastic question — it’s a basic matter of logic. If Jesus is God, and He was “born” around the year 1 CE, then whom did the earlier prophets — Abraham, Noah, Moses, even Adam — pray to?
Were they praying to a baby who hadn’t been born yet? Did God only become “complete” after incarnating as a man? This is a major contradiction within the theology of incarnation.
Moses never taught the Trinity. In fact, the Torah — upheld by both Jews and Christians — clearly states:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.”
Deuteronomy 6:4
There was never any concept of a triune being, divine Sonship, or incarnation. If Jesus is truly God, and the Trinity is supposedly the “key to salvation,” then why didn’t God inform Moses about it? Did God keep His identity hidden for thousands of years, only to reveal it in the 1st century?
Tawhid is universal. The Trinity is an addition
Tawhid — pure monotheism — was taught by all prophets from Adam to Muhammad. The doctrine of the Trinity, on the other hand, is a product of the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). It was never taught by Jesus himself, but defined later by the Church after his time.
Even the Bible never mentions the word “Trinity.” Jesus never said, “I am God. Worship me.” Instead, he clearly said:
“The Father is greater than I.”
John 14:28
Islam is not new — it’s a continuation
The name “Islam” may not have been known during Jesus’s lifetime, but its essence — submission to the One God — has existed since Adam. This is reinforced in the Qur’an:
“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.”
The Holy Qur’an 3:19
And again:
“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim, and not among the polytheists.”
The Holy Qur’an 3:67
Islam is not the beginning — it is the completion. Tawhid is the core — not a novelty. Muhammad is the Seal — not the founder of a new system.
The Prophet Muhammad did not come to invent a religion, but to restore the Straight Path that had been twisted by human hands. Islam may not have existed as a label during Jesus’s time, but the truth of monotheism did. The Qur’an and its teachings serve as a completion and clarification of previous revelations. Muhammad is the final messenger, after Jesus — but he is part of the same prophetic chain.
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus — all of them were Muslim in the truest sense: those who submitted to the One God.
Ask the Jews: were they ever taught the Trinity?
The Jewish people never embraced the idea of a three-in-one God. They have always upheld uncompromising monotheism.
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.”
Deuteronomy 6:4
They rejected Jesus as God not because they lacked faith, but because the idea contradicted their core belief in divine oneness.
So if God is truly “three in one,” why wasn’t this taught to Moses, David, Solomon, or any of the prophets of the Children of Israel?
Language of Jesus
Jesus spoke Aramaic, a Semitic dialect used in first-century Galilee and Judea. In Aramaic, the word “Elaha” (ܐܠܗܐ), sometimes pronounced “Alaha”, means God. In the Western Aramaic dialect, it can sound like “Aloho”. Linguistically, this word is very closely related to the Hebrew “Eloah / Elohim” and the Arabic “Allah”.
All of these words share the same Semitic root (ʾ-L-H), which conveys the meaning of “God” or “The One to be Worshiped.”
Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic are all part of the same Semitic language family. Consider this comparison:
| Language | Word for God | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Aramaic (Jesus) | ܐܠܗܐ Elaha / Alaha | Used in the Peshitta, the Aramaic New Testament |
| Hebrew | Eloah / Elohim | Found in the Tanakh (Old Testament) |
| Arabic (Islam) | Allah (الله) | Used in the Qur’an |
So, when Jesus prayed to God, the word that came from his lips was not “God” or “Theos” (Greek), but “Elaha” — a word that shares its root and meaning with “Allah.”
Islam teaches:
“Every prophet before Muhammad brought the message of monotheism — calling people to the worship of the one true God: Allah, only in their own language.”
This includes Jesus, who called upon God in his own tongue — “Elaha” — which is linguistically and theologically identical to “Allah.”
So, when someone says “Jesus never used the name Allah”, they’re simply relying on English translations — not the original language of Jesus himself. In fact, this reveals a powerful truth: there is a deep continuity among the prophets who came before Muhammad. They all taught the same core message of Tawhid — pure monotheism — only in different languages.
Christian Theological Explanation: Love and Justice
In Christian theology, especially within Protestantism and Catholicism, the explanation goes something like this:
Why did Jesus pray to God?
Jesus is believed to be God incarnate—fully divine and fully human. As a human, He experienced hunger, fatigue, and the need to pray. But in essence, He remained one with the Father within the concept of the Trinity:
- God is one in essence, but three in persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
- Therefore, Jesus as the Son could pray to the Father.
However, the problem is that the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t directly explained in the Bible. It’s a formulation of the Church—such as at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). That’s why this doctrine is often criticized by thinkers like myself, as well as by rationalist Christian theologians.
Why was crucifixion and suffering necessary?
According to Christian theology, human sin is severe, and God’s justice must be upheld. A perfect sacrifice was necessary for atonement, and only God Himself could be worthy enough for this. By dying on the cross, God demonstrates His love (by taking on the punishment) and His justice (sin is still punished). This is known as substitutionary atonement—Jesus takes the place of humankind in receiving judgment.
But… It still doesn’t make sense
Despite these theological explanations, the concept still feels strange to many, including:
- Islamic thinkers such as Al-Ghazali, Ibn Hazm, and Shahrastani.
- Unitarian Christian thinkers like Fausto Sozzini.
- Rationalists like Thomas Paine and Leo Tolstoy.
The big question is: Why would an all-loving God choose such a brutal and convoluted method to express His love?
Christianity believes the way of the cross is the mystery of divine love. But from the standpoint of logic and Islamic Tawhid, the concept lacks coherence:
- Jesus as God praying to God creates confusion about identity and role.
- Atonement through suffering implies God cannot forgive without a medium.
- If God is loving, why must that love be demonstrated through the crucifixion of a Son?
If God is all-loving, why must that love be shown through something as brutal as the crucifixion of a Son—and as complex as a divine mechanism of atonement through death?
Consider this analogy:
“I want to free you from debt, but first I’ll horribly hurt myself so that you understand how much I love you.”
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just say, “Your debt is forgiven”—no blood, no pain?
Or this analogy:
“Teaching someone to get top grades by cheating, then calling it ‘intelligence’.”
While it may not align perfectly in context, the essence is sharp:
Using a flawed or confusing method to achieve something that could have been done in a more truthful, honest, and straightforward way.
As if:
- God had to “submit” to a system He Himself created.
- God couldn’t forgive sin without death and blood.
- God couldn’t express love without suffering.
This isn’t a concept of love—it’s a maze of tortured logic.
God’s love in Islam: simpler, clearer
Compare this with the concept of God’s love in Islam:
“My mercy prevails over My wrath.”
Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim
And in this verse:
قُلْ يٰعِبَادِيَ الَّذِيْنَ اَسْرَفُوْا عَلٰٓى اَنْفُسِهِمْ لَا تَقْنَطُوْا مِنْ رَّحْمَةِ اللّٰهِ ۗاِنَّ اللّٰهَ يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوْبَ جَمِيْعًا ۗاِنَّهٗ هُوَ الْغَفُوْرُ الرَّحِيْمُ
“Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins. He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
The Holy Qur’an 39:53
The God of Islam doesn’t need physical sacrifice to express His love. He gives mercy, guidance, and forgiveness directly—without harming Himself or His creation.
Imagine a father allowing his child to be tortured and killed to save others. Is that love? In human logic, it feels more like betrayal of one’s own family. And besides, what kind of parent would stand by silently while their child is crucified, crying out to be saved (as Jesus prayed)? What kind of parent is that? A heartless one?
A Moral Crisis in the Narrative of Trinitarian Atonement
Let’s return to the central question:
If Jesus is “the Son of God,” the beloved Son, why did the Father allow His Son to be tortured, stripped, mocked, and brutally executed in public… in order to redeem the sins of others? Are those “others” more precious than Jesus, that the Father would cast aside His own Son?
I ask again: If Jesus is the beloved Son of God, why would God sacrifice His own Son to save humanity? Is humanity more valuable than His own Son?
This logic doesn’t add up, and here’s why:
- If Jesus is God, why must there be a ransom? A ransom to whom? Is God paying Himself?
- If God is Almighty, why is He bound by a “cosmic system” of His own making?
- If God’s love is supreme… sacrificing an innocent Son to save the guilty feels like an insult to that love.
In human terms, if a king lets his child be executed to free a criminal (a sinner), we’d say: “This is not a just king. This is a cruel father.”
If humans are more valuable than Jesus, then Jesus is not supreme, not God, and not worthy of worship.
But if Jesus is still God, then sacrificing God for His creation is the ultimate contradiction:
- God cannot be sacrificed.
- God cannot die.
- God cannot prioritize creation above Himself.
This is where the beauty of Islam lies:
- God does not need to torture anyone to show love.
- God does not need to “redeem” sin—He simply forgives.
- God does not need to crucify anyone—He offers guidance and mercy instead.
And in Islam:
- Every soul is responsible for its own sin.
- There is no original sin.
- There is no “Son of God.”
- There is no God who must be sacrificed.
- Most importantly: No creature is more valuable than God.
So let’s go back to the earlier question: Is humanity more important than the Son of God?
- If the answer is yes, then Jesus is not God.
- If the answer is no, then why would God sacrifice what is greater for what is lesser?
There’s no escape from this contradiction without abandoning reason or logical faith.
The Resurrection of Jesus: Another Paradox
Jesus is said to have risen from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion, and will return in the Second Coming at the end of time.
Christianity states: “Jesus has risen and will return.” But this raises new questions.
If someone “rises,” they must first be dead—clearly and totally—then return to life. If He wasn’t truly dead, the resurrection is a drama. But if He really died, then God can die, which contradicts the very concept of divinity.
Christian explanation says that Jesus rose physically, ascended to heaven, and now “lives” at the right hand of the Father. He will return to judge and fulfill the Kingdom of God. But the term “resurrected” remains problematic:
- If Jesus is God and cannot die, how did He die and then rise?
- If He didn’t truly die, the resurrection is a staged performance.
- If He did die, then God is mortal—and subject to the same weaknesses as all created beings.
This leads to two paths:
A devout Christian might say, “It’s a mystery of faith—beyond reason.”
A rationalist or a believer in Tawhid would say, “This is contradictory, because God, by definition, cannot die, be resurrected, or change.”
The word “resurrection” implies prior death. And if Jesus rose, then He must not have been alive—meaning He was not actively existing. But if He is God, how can He not exist, even momentarily?
That’s not just confusing—it fundamentally clashes with the idea of divine nature.
Jesus Praying on the Cross: A Trinitarian Contradiction
Let’s revisit the earlier claim:
God (Jesus) is one in essence but three in persons. Jesus as the Son can pray to the Father.
On the cross, Jesus prayed to His Father. So, did the Father (who is also Himself) answer that prayer? Yet Jesus still died and was placed in the tomb.
Jesus prayed to His Father during the crucifixion. But if He is also God, was He praying to Himself? And if He is truly God, why wasn’t His prayer answered (by the Father or by Himself)? Why did He still die and get buried in a tomb?
In the Gospel of Matthew 27:46, Jesus cries out:
“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” (“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”)
The question is: How can God forsake God?
If Jesus is part of the Trinity and one in essence with the Father, how can there be separation between Him and the Father?
Let’s test this using Trinitarian logic:
“One in essence, but three in persons.”
This means (according to church doctrine):
- The Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are distinct persons,
- But they are all one God.
So, when Jesus (the Son) prays to the Father, He’s praying to a different person—but that person shares the same essence as Himself.
It’s like talking to yourself and expecting a response from another part of yourself.
Historical facts:
- Jesus prayed with the hope of being answered, showing dependence.
- He was not saved from the cross—He died (meaning, outwardly, His prayer was not answered).
- He was wrapped in burial cloth and entombed like any ordinary human.
If God can die, pray, and suffer, where is the divine nature that transcends time, space, and death? This logic is in direct opposition to the concept of a universal, eternal God. In Islam, God does not sleep, does not hunger, is not dependent, and cannot die. Jesus, who prayed and suffered, appears to be a holy man—not God.
In philosophy: “The Absolute cannot be affected by the relative.”
So if Jesus truly died, was buried, and needed to pray—then He cannot be God.
When Jesus prayed to the Father during His crucifixion and that prayer was not answered, what we’re witnessing is not God—but a holy man in despair, crying out to God—just like other prophets in history.
And if He really was God, then:
- Why pray at all?
- Why feel abandoned?
- Why die like a regular human?
- Who was running the universe while God was “dead” on the cross and buried?
These are holes in the doctrine that cannot be filled without resorting to vague phrases like “mystery of faith.”
The Trinity: An Inconsistent Hierarchy
In the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons but one God. Yet Jesus said:
“The Father is greater than I.”
John 14:28
And in this verse:
“Concerning the Day of Judgment, not even the Son knows, only the Father.”
Mark 13:32
If the Father is greater, then there is hierarchy. Jesus is not equal to the Father. This breaks the claim of equality within the Trinity. Among these three persons of God, the most supreme and all-knowing is the Father—not Jesus.
If God doesn’t know something, how can He be All-Knowing? This directly contradicts the idea of a universal God.
“Just Have Faith” Is Not a Satisfying Answer
When faced with contradictions, the classic Christian response is often: “It’s a mystery of faith; you just have to believe.” This tends to serve as a fallback explanation for something that cannot be logically sustained. But if God is truly Just and Wise, He would not command us to accept something absurd or to shut off our reasoning. Personally, I believe God would not confuse His creation with a convoluted self-revelation that requires solving an extremely complex theological puzzle. Is “just believe” really enough?
If God genuinely desires to be known by His creation, He would surely present Himself in a simple, clear, and unambiguous manner—not as a three-dimensional riddle requiring “official doctrine (Council of Nicaea)” and 1,700 years of theological history to comprehend.
If God is indeed Just and Wise, He would not command us to:
- Surrender our intellects,
- Accept the illogical,
- Or treat confusion as a form of devotion.
In Islam (and in rational monotheism more broadly), God is:
- One (without division or dual personality),
- Independent,
- Not in need of incarnating as a human,
- Not required to die to forgive sins,
- And He introduces Himself in the clearest, most unambiguous words.
Now compare that with the Christian creed:
“God is one in essence, but three in persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Try explaining that to people. If a doctrine about God leads to greater confusion regarding who He truly is, then it’s unlikely to originate from God.
Faith does not mean abandoning reason, but rather trusting in something once it enters the heart and is accepted by sound intellect. If God created the human mind, why would He send a revelation that contradicts it?
Here are several elements within Christian doctrine (especially Trinitarianism and atonement) that I find intellectually and spiritually frustrating:
Jesus is God, but He prays to God. If He is God, why pray? If He prays, He’s not God. Is He praying to Himself?
God died on the cross, but God cannot die. So who actually died? Just the human side of Jesus? Then the sacrifice wasn’t divine. If God is eternal, how can He die?
The Trinity: Three persons, one God. The Father ≠ Son ≠ Holy Spirit, but all are God. Yet there is only one God. Not 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, but 1 × 1 × 1 = 1?
Jesus is the “Son of God” but not biologically. If not literal, why use the term “Son”? If literal, doesn’t that contradict the claim that God neither begets nor is begotten?
God atones for sin by sacrificing Himself to Himself to satisfy His own justice. Is this a divine solution to a problem He Himself created?
Humans inherit sin from Adam (original sin). Are newborns considered guilty and in need of redemption? What kind of justice punishes descendants for their ancestor’s fault?
Heaven is only for believers in Jesus. So all righteous non-Christians—even prophets before Jesus—are condemned? Is salvation tied to a spiritual ID card?
Jesus is all-knowing, yet says He doesn’t know the hour of the Last Day (Mark 13:32). Can God be ignorant of something?
The Holy Spirit dwells in believers, but churches still disagree. Why does one Spirit give conflicting understandings to different churches? Is God confusing His own followers?
Jesus ascended physically to heaven and will return on the clouds. In the age of satellites and planes—where exactly is “up”? Is heaven a literal sky-realm?
The Bible is inerrant, but contains contradictions and multiple versions. For example, Jesus’s genealogy differs significantly in Matthew and Luke. Can divine revelation come in conflicting versions?
Jesus is God but was born from a woman, ate, slept, got tired… and used the bathroom. How can God have biological needs? Did God use a toilet?
The Christian Scriptures
The assertion that the Christian Scriptures — particularly the New Testament — have undergone extensive revision, editing, additions, and alterations by human hands is a historical fact acknowledged by many Christian textual scholars themselves. This is not a conspiracy theory or a baseless accusation; it is affirmed by honest and competent Christian academics in the fields of history and textual criticism. Below are the key facts and supporting evidence:
No original Gospel manuscripts exist
All existing Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are merely copies of copies — and they differ from one another significantly. The earliest manuscript fragments date only to the second century CE, and the earliest complete manuscripts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) are from the fourth century. The Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, not by eyewitnesses. This means there is no such thing as the “original” Gospel — only versions that were manually copied, often with considerable variation.
Hundreds of thousands of variants in the manuscripts
Renowned Christian scholar Bart D. Ehrman — a former evangelical and now agnostic — stated in his book “Misquoting Jesus”:
“There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”
The estimated number of textual differences among Greek New Testament manuscripts is around 400,000. Many of these are not merely spelling errors but involve doctrinal matters.
Additions and omissions of entire passages
Some well-known passages were later additions and do not appear in the earliest manuscripts:
- Mark 16:9–20: The section describing Jesus’ resurrection and the Great Commission is absent from early manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Many modern Bible versions (e.g., NIV) note that this passage was added later.
- John 7:53 – 8:11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery): The famous story — “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” — is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It was inserted centuries later.
This means that some of the most beloved Gospel stories about Jesus were not part of the original texts.
Which books are “canonical”? The church decided
The Gospels recognized today were selected by church councils — they were not divinely delivered as a single, unified volume. Dozens of other gospels once existed, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, the Hebrew Gospel, and the Gospel of Peter.
Many of these texts were regarded as legitimate scripture by early Christian communities but were later excluded by church authorities. The canon was solidified through church councils, notably the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), and more decisively, the Councils of Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 CE), which declared which books were “Scripture” and which were not.
It is historically evident that the Christian Scriptures have undergone substantial human alteration. There are hundreds of thousands of textual variants, added verses, lost manuscripts, and documents selected or discarded by church authorities — and no original Gospel manuscripts from the time of Jesus have survived.
Even Christian scholars do not hide these facts — yet only a small portion of the Christian laity is aware of them.
When Religion Becomes Pop Culture
And I often see content like this on social media, where Jesus is inserted as a character in fictional stories. And I find myself staring at the screen and whispering, “Huh, seriously?”
Christ is King pic.twitter.com/XhyNO0jmjp
andmdash; Trad West (@trad_west_) July 22, 2025
For example, in this tweet states: “Jesus Christ is the strongest character in JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure” with the caption “Christ is King,” accompanied by a manga-style illustration of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns.
Such blending of sacred figures with flamboyant fictional characters borders on blasphemy.
This raises a serious question: Is this homage or mockery? If Jesus is truly God, why compare Him to a fictional anime character? Reducing a holy figure to “the most OP (overpowered) character” undermines the sanctity of divinity or prophethood. Religion becomes viral content instead of a path to contemplation.
Imagine:
- Jesus fighting beings He Himself created.
- Portrayed as struggling to make the story more dramatic.
- Fans cheering “Christ is King! Christ is cool!” like football supporters.
It’s baffling. If Jesus is truly God, then:
- Why does He need to be “cool” through anime-style battles?
- Why fight His own creations?
- Why struggle like Naruto or Luffy to win?
This trend reveals how religious symbols are often used for aesthetics or “coolness” rather than spiritual depth. As a result, sacred meaning is sacrificed for likes and shares. If Jesus is truly their God, how can they be so willing to turn Him into entertainment? They claim to worship Him, yet have no qualms reducing Him to a comic book hero.
This isn’t reverence—it’s commercialization. What’s being glorified isn’t the real Jesus, but a pop-culture Jesus—filtered into a “badass” manga character to appeal to Gen Z and anime fans.
In Islam, this is almost unthinkable. Imagine the Prophet Muhammad depicted as an anime character in a white robe with a magic sword fighting jinn. Muslims would be outraged—not over the violence, but over the desecration of prophethood. Prophets and God are not entertainment.
Those creating such content seem unaware: they are degrading the very figure they claim to honor. Saying “Jesus loses in chapter one but revives in chapter two” equates Him with fictional characters like Naruto or Luffy. God does not need to be “relatable” through pop culture—He elevates humanity; He is not to be reduced to comic levels.
From a theological standpoint:
- In Islam, fictional or caricatured depictions of prophets are considered highly offensive and blasphemous.
- Even in conservative Christianity, depicting Jesus in exaggerated or non-scriptural forms is often seen as inappropriate.
- Yet today, many people—especially online—are more interested in making God “relatable” or “trending,” even if it’s absurd or shallow.
- People now say “God is King” while turning Him into an anime character—without sensing the contradiction.
Nuns as Pop Culture Objects: The Loss of Sacredness
Happy #Nunday #AIart #stablediffusion #AIArtCommuity #DigitalArt #aiイラスト #AIgirl #AIbeauty #nun pic.twitter.com/ApQOGUj8Nt
andmdash; Marko (@DreamFrameUA) July 20, 2025
It’s not just Jesus—other sacred symbols like Catholic nuns have also been transformed. In Catholicism, nuns are revered women who vow to live in purity, simplicity, and devotion to God. Yet on the internet and in anime, they’re sexualized, fetishized, and turned into pop culture fantasies.
This raises the question: Why do many Christians tolerate or even embrace such portrayals? The answer might be: Their religion has become pop-culture-ized. They’ve been taught Jesus is “love,” God is “freedom,” and nuns are “aesthetic icons.”
But what happens when sacred figures are no longer honored, but commodified? When religion is cool not because of its values, but because it fits a trending aesthetic? Religion loses its direction. It becomes less about knowing God and more about “looking spiritual while staying edgy.”
Compare this with Islam:
Imagine the Prophet’s wives, historical Muslim women, or the hijab being portrayed in similar ways. Muslims would instantly reject it. Symbols of worship are not cosplay, and sacredness is not an erotic art theme.
Many today cling to their religion not out of faith, but because it has become a “cool lifestyle” filled with fanart, memes, and character designs. But this does not bring people closer to God.
The Concept of God: Islam vs. Trinitarian Christianity
After observing all this, let’s summarize the theology. From a rational, philosophical, and revelatory perspective, Islam’s concept of God is far more straightforward, consistent, and logical.
The concept of God in Islam:
قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ
“Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah—One ˹and Indivisible˺; Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺. He has never had offspring, nor was He born. And there is none comparable to Him.”
The Holy Qur’an 112:1-4
God’s Characteristics in Islam:
- Absolute oneness: not “one-in-three” or “three-in-one.”
- Unlike creation: no human form, no eating, sleeping, or dying.
- Independent: all beings rely on Him; He needs nothing.
- No offspring, no parentage: no “Father,” “Son,” or lineage.
- Inconceivable: cannot be depicted in paintings, sculptures, or faces.
Logically, this is coherent and non-contradictory.
The concept of God in Trinitarian Christianity:
“God is one in essence but three in persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is God, but not three Gods—just one.”
The logical issues:
- How can 3 persons = 1 God?
- Why can one (Jesus) die while the others remain alive?
- If Jesus prays to the Father, doesn’t that imply hierarchy?
- Why must God be born, suffer, and die to forgive, when He is all-powerful?
This concept defies reason and is often shielded behind the phrase “mystery of faith.”
Why Don’t More Christians Question These Things?
Because they are raised to simply “believe.” Many Christian doctrines — especially the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement — are taught as “mysteries of faith.” Meaning: they don’t need to make sense — you just have to believe.
But if something defies logic, why must it be forced as a “pillar of faith”? Because questioning it is considered sinful or a betrayal of faith. Many churches teach that doubting the Trinity = rejecting God = a ticket to hell. So, believers are discouraged from thinking freely.
And all this is made worse by the rise of pop-Christianity. Modern Christians, especially the younger generation, are more religious in style than in substance. They share Jesus memes, sing Jesus-themed songs, post anime images of Jesus, and proclaim “Christ is my King” — but rarely reflect deeply on who it is they worship. They often know little of their religion’s history or theology, yet are quick to mock other faiths — especially Islam.
There are no truly logical answers to Christianity’s core doctrines — because they contradict even basic reason that a child could challenge with simple, honest questions.
And if rational thinking and questioning logic are seen as threats to Christian faith, then such faith is standing on a fragile foundation. If reason is treated as a danger, it implies that the faith is incompatible with intellect. Yet God, in many traditions, is believed to be All-Wise — the Creator of the human mind. So what is the purpose of reason, if we are forbidden from using it to know God?
If logical thinking can lead someone to “apostasy,” then that faith is not a pursuit of truth — it is a mental prison, merely decorated to look beautiful. Such faith is built not on understanding, but on fear. And faith that is born of fear is not true faith — it is emotional coercion.
This kind of belief becomes immune to criticism — but also immune to truth. If every question is dismissed with, “It’s a mystery of faith,” or “We are not meant to understand God,” or “You must believe unconditionally,” then there is no space for honesty. No space to grow. No space to truly discover God.
The Qur’an repeatedly invites human beings to think: “Afala ta‘qilun?” – Will you not use your reason? “Afala tatafakkarun?” – Will you not reflect?
God in Islam does not fear being questioned. He does not fear having His existence and logic examined — because the answers are always rational, clear, and free of paradox.
Thinkers Who Acknowledge the Clarity of Islamic Monotheism
Many thinkers—even non-Muslims—have acknowledged the theological clarity and superiority of Islam’s concept of God:
- Thomas Jefferson (3rd President and Founding Fathers of U.S.): Criticized the Trinity, favored Unitarianism (God as One). Also read, The Influence of the Qur’an on Thomas Jefferson and American Values only on my website.
- Leo Tolstoy (Russian writer): Praised Islam’s simplicity in describing God.
- Mahatma Gandhi (Indian lawyer): Admired Islam’s pure monotheism.
- Jeffrey Lang (former atheist, now Muslim): Converted because the Qur’anic view of God felt pure and rational.
Islam’s concept of God requires no “formulas of faith” or mental gymnastics. If God created reason, His teachings must be consistent with reason—and Islam offers that.
Religion Is Not Content, and God Is Not Entertainment
This article is my reflection as a Muslim seeking to understand Christianity with reason and an open heart. I don’t intend to offend, but to spark honest discussion about the theological and logical contradictions I perceive—and how pop culture may weaken spiritual meaning.
Religion should draw us nearer to God, not become a source of fanart or amusement. God does not need to be “trending” to be revered.
