The Facts on Islam (Harvest House, rev. 1998), p. 30-31

How convincing are Muslim apologetics?

  The word apologetics is derived from the Greek apologia which means “to present a defense for.” In “How Muslims Do Apologetics,” philosopher and theologian, John Warwick Montgomery discusses a characteristic problem of Muslim apologetics—that of defending Islam by “discrediting” Christianity. But “such refutations are not ‘apologies’ or defenses at all, but are ad hominem arguments of an offensive nature.”* Even if Muslim apologists could disprove Christianity, this would not prove the truth of Islam. Islam would still require—on its own merits—independent verification as a revelation of God. And because the evidence is lacking, it is precisely at this point that Muslim apologists fail. Muhammad was clearly inspired by some supernatural source, but how could he be inspired by God if his inspiration rejected God’s revelation in the Bible? Biblical inspiration and/or accuracy are independently verified by prophecy, archeology, manuscript evidence, and other means. We have documented this in some detail in our Ready With An Answer (Harvest House, 1997). Islam, however offers no genuine evidence for its claim that the Koran is inspired, other than Muhammad’s own claim he was inspired by Gabriel. But what if Muhammad was wrong? If the biblical God is the true God and if Muhammad were a prophet of God, he would never have denied God’s revelation in the Bible. … In essence, after evaluating Muslim apologetics we are forced to conclude that the average Muslim, unknowingly and regrettably, has been misled by apologists whose primary arguments are based on subjectivism, logical fallacies, anachronism, and other unfortunate historical errors. *For documentation, see The Facts on Islam.