“We all worship the same God”.
You’ve heard it from politicians, celebrities, and even some pastors. It’s become something of a modern mantra, trying to shoehorn acceptance of other beliefs and blend all religions into one, especially the Abrahamic ones. But what if the Bible and Qur’an tell different stories? Let’s see what their own words reveal so you can judge for yourself.
Many point out that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share a belief in one eternal Creator God. That’s true — up to a point. Both the Bible and Qur’an describe God as powerful, all-knowing, merciful, and more.
Here’s a list comparing some of the common shared attributes between YHWH and Allah, with direct citations from both Scriptures:
According to the Bible (NRSV) and the Qur’an
Eternal
Creator
Omnipotent (All-Powerful)
Omniscient (All-Knowing)
Omnipresent (Present Everywhere)
Holy
Just
Merciful
Compassionate
Faithful
Unchanging
Sovereign
Loving
Forgiving
Wrathful toward evil
One/Unique
Jealous of worship
Gracious
Righteous
Truthful
Wise
Peace-giving
Light
Exclusive of worship
Judge of all
Patient
While some general deity attributes match, others sharply contrast the more you dig into the character of each. For example, the Bible calls believers to love their enemies, yet the Qur’an commands fighting and the subjugation of those who reject Islam.
This next list highlights stark differences where Allah’s commands or attributes directly oppose YHWH’s goodness:
How Allah’s words and actions in the Qur’an often oppose YHWH’s goodness in the Bible
Universal Love
Love for Enemies
Desire for All to Be Saved
Freely Forgiving
Cannot Lie
Grace Apart from Works
Consistent Mercy
Gives Life Abundantly
Shows No Partiality
Peacemaker
Gentle Shepherd
Redemption Through Sacrifice
Now we will see that there are outright contradictions. For example, the Bible says Jesus died on the cross; the Qur’an denies He was crucified. Both can’t be true.
Scriptures that cannot both be true if they are from the same God/source.
The Crucifixion of Jesus
God’s Love for Sinners
The Way to God
Response to Enemies
God’s Truthfulness
God as Father
Desire for All to Be Saved
Jesus as Son of God
Assurance of Salvation
Living Peaceably
One area especially relevant today is how God treats non-Jews or non-Muslims.
These teachings cannot both reflect the same God.
A final and often overlooked difference between YHWH and Allah lies in how (or if) God can be seen or encountered.
The Bible teaches that while God is Spirit and invisible by nature (John 4:24), He chooses to make Himself known in tangible ways — ultimately in Jesus Christ.
✅ John 1:14, 18 — “The Word became flesh and lived among us… No one has ever seen God; it is God the only Son… who has made him known.”
✅ Exodus 33:11 — “The LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.”
✅ Hebrews 1:1–3 — “In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son… the exact imprint of God’s very being.”
✅ Genesis 18:1–3 — YHWH appeared to Abraham as a man.
YHWH not only speaks to humanity — He enters into it. He is not limited by his transcendence, but chooses to reveal himself out of love. This culminates in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, Immanual — “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).
Islam strongly denies that Allah can ever become man, be seen, or take form.
❌ Surah 42:51 — “It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil…”
❌ Surah 112:3 — “He neither begets nor is born.”
❌ Surah 6:103 — “Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives all vision.”
However, Hadith literature introduces troubling anthropomorphic imagery, though some Muslim scholars try to say this is only metaphorical despite its literal nature:
⚠️ Sahih Bukhari 7510 — “Our Lord will reveal His shin, and then every believer… will prostrate before Him.”
⚠️ Sahih Bukhari 7439 — “Allah will place His foot in Hell, and it will say, ‘Enough! Enough!’”
While the Qur’an says Allah cannot be seen or known directly, some Hadiths describe him with body parts, such as hands, a face, a shin, and even a foot — yet still deny any form of incarnation or direct and personal relationship like the Father and Son in the Bible.
This contrast is not a minor detail; it’s actually quite foundational! It reveals something core to the nature and character of each God, as portrayed by their respective Scriptures.
✅ YHWH reveals Himself.
He walked with Adam, dined with Abraham, spoke with Moses, and dwelt among us in Christ, and makes us into temples of his Holy Spirit. He is knowable, relational, and has made Himself visible.
❌ Allah remains veiled.
He cannot be seen, known directly, or take on flesh. The Qur’an denies the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship of Christ, and the indwelling presence of the Spirit.
So when someone says, “We all worship the same God,” ask them: Is your God knowable? Has he spoken face to face? Did he walk among us?
The Bible says God became man to reveal Himself (John 1:18; Hebrews 1:1-3). Islam says God cannot become man, and that the incarnation is blasphemy. So even how God is seen (or not seen) becomes another sharp dividing line between the two religions.
The final key differences I want to point out are the nature or concept of salvation in each religion. In Christianity (and by extension, Judaism), God has always been about grace and blessing humans despite their flaws and ignorance, and helping them find him. In contrast, Islam promotes a works-based salvation where Muslims might get into Allah’s good graces if they do and say the right things enough throughout their lives, and even then, there’s no certainty they will make it to heaven. Even Muhammed was unsure of his eternal security (Surah 46:9; see also: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51:16 and Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58:266).
Scripture Examples:
Qur’an Examples:
Both faiths teach one Creator (as do various other religions), but the character, commands, and plan of salvation revealed by YHWH and Allah directly contradict each other. With all of this considered, the answer becomes clear: they are not the same deity, and we don’t both worship the same God.
There is only one way to God the Father, and that is through his Son Christ Jesus:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” — John 14:6
Have you heard “we all worship the same God”? What do you think after seeing these Scriptures? Leave a comment below!
Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon!
By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books
Luke J. Wilson | 29th December 2025 | Christmas
January 6th marks the day in the liturgical calendar when the arrival of the Magi visiting baby Jesus with their gifts is celebrated. But with it comes the often distressing account of what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Matthew places this moment of revelation of Jesus as King alongside one of the darkest episodes in his Gospel, and it’s a stark contrast: one King is here to bring peace on earth, as the angels declared, the other king brought death and destruction. For some readers, this raises an immediate historical question. If Herod truly ordered the killing of all the male children under two in Bethlehem, why does no other ancient historian mention it? Josephus, after all, delights in cataloguing Herod’s cruelty. He records the execution of Herod’s wife, his sons, and numerous political rivals. Herod was paranoid and vicious. As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation … whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them. — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.11.7 So, why the silence here about Bethlehem? The answer, I would say, isn’t anything nefarious or made-up by Matthew, but just something simply down to scale. Bethlehem Was a Very Small Place Bethlehem in the early first century was not a city. It was a village — small, agricultural, and politically insignificant. Most historians estimate its population at somewhere between 300 and 1,000 people, with around 500 being a sensible midpoint. Once we factor in ancient demographics, the numbers become surprisingly modest. Modern demographic research into pre-industrial societies consistently shows that nearly half of all children died before adulthood, with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the first two years of life. These findings align closely with conditions in Roman-period Judea and support conservative estimates for the number of infants living in a small village such as Bethlehem. Source: Mortality in the past: every second child died — Our World in Data In pre-modern societies with high infant mortality, only about 2–3% of the population would be living children under the age of two at any given time. Many children were born; far fewer survived those earliest years. Applying a conservative 2.5% figure to Bethlehem gives us roughly: 7–8 children under two in a village of 300 12–13 children under two in a village of 500 25 children under two even at the extreme upper estimate of 1,000 inhabitants Herod’s order, however, targeted male children only. Statistically, that halves the number. This places the likely number of victims somewhere between three and twelve boys. Matthew’s reference to ‘Bethlehem and the surrounding region’ does slightly widen the scope of Herod’s order, but not by enough to change the demographic picture. Even when nearby settlements are included (e.g. farmsteads, shepherd settlements, etc. not major cities/towns), the total number of children under two likely remained in the dozens rather than the hundreds, maybe anywhere between 14–45 boys maximum if we make an educated estimate. This is entirely consistent with what we know of population size and infant mortality in the ancient world. This is an important number to realise and consider. Not because the deaths are insignificant simply due to being so few, but because ancient historians did not record history the way we do now. A small number of peasant children killed in an obscure village would not have registered as a notable event alongside palace intrigue, royal executions, or political upheaval. For Josephus, it wou...
Luke J. Wilson | 15th December 2025 | Hell
Christian conversations about hell have never been especially calm, but the recent online reaction to Kirk Cameron’s comments in favour of annihilationism has been particularly revealing. Social media has erupted with accusations of heresy, doctrinal collapse, and theological compromise. It’s the “Rob Bell Incident” all over again (if anyone remembers that). The infamous John Piper tweet about Rob Bell A lot of comments I saw were wondering what Ray Comfort thinks of this, as he and Kirk worked closely together in ministry for about 25 years, and while Ray wasn’t as dismissive as John Piper was of Rob Bell, he still calls out Kirk’s new views as “erroneous”: While we believe Kirk is sincere, we believe that conditional mortality and annihilationism are erroneous views, and that the Bible’s clear teaching on hell is known as eternal conscious torment. We firmly believe that this is the only correct biblical view. (source) Yet beneath the noise of social media grinding its gears is something far more ordinary and far more Christian: a believer wrestling seriously with Scripture, or as some would say, “being a Berean” (Acts 17:11). This is something we all should be doing, forming our views and doctrines from Scripture, not out-of-context social media video snippets and memes. Whether one agrees with Cameron’s conclusions or not, what is happening is not the abandonment of orthodoxy, but the resurfacing of a long-standing and legitimate theological discussion. Annihilationism, or, more precisely, Conditional Immortality — is neither novel nor liberal, nor is it an attempt to make Christianity and hell more palatable, as many people presume. It is a position grounded in Scripture, represented throughout Church history, and held by Christians who take divine judgement every bit as seriously as their eternal-torment counterparts. This is not a debate invented by Twitter (or “𝕏” as it’s called now…). It’s been around for a long, long, time. Watch Kirk’s video in full here before forming an opinion Immortality Is Assumed, Not Taught One of the quiet assumptions behind Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is the idea that all human souls are inherently immortal, and therefore must exist forever somewhere. Once that premise is accepted, eternal suffering becomes unavoidable. The difficulty is that Scripture does not teach innate human immortality. In fact, it repeatedly teaches the opposite. Immortality is consistently presented as a gift, not a default state. Eternal life is something God grants, not something humans naturally possess (Rom. 6:23). In Genesis, humanity is barred from the tree of life precisely so that they might not “live for ever” in a fallen state (Gen. 3:22–24). In the New Testament, immortality is something Christ “brings to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10), and something believers “put on” at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54). Conditional Immortality simply takes that biblical theme seriously. It argues that only those united to Christ are granted immortality, while the wicked ultimately perish. Judgement is real, severe, and final — but it does not require endless conscious suffering. This distinction matters, because much of the outrage directed at annihilationism is based on inherited philosophical assumptions, which come from Plato, rather than careful exegesis. Biblical Language: Death Means Death One of the most compelling aspects of conditionalism is the sheer consistency of biblical language concerning the fate of the wicked. Scripture repeatedly speaks in terms of: Death — “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4) Perishing — “God so loved the world… that everyone who believes in him may not perish” (John 3:16) Destruction — “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9) Being consumed or brought to an end —...
Luke J. Wilson | 13th December 2025 | Christmas
How can God beget a Son? Does that mean Jesus is His creation? This question comes sharply into focus during Advent, when the Church contemplates the Incarnation: the eternal Son entering the world as a baby in Mary’s womb. And to understand this, we turn to language the Church has treasured for centuries — especially that crucial distinction between begotten and created. And C. S. Lewis describes this with a real concise clarity: We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set — or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive. Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man. By saying that Jesus is begotten from the Father, we are saying that Jesus is fully God and not a creation of God (Arianism), nor is the Son of God simply a mode or action of God (Sabellianism). This is the heart of Christian theology: begotten = shared nature created = different nature Begotten Means “of the Same Essence” When the Father begets the Son, He is not constructing or manufacturing Him. Begetting is not an act inside time. It is an eternal relationship. Just as: light is never without radiance a fire is never without heat the Father is never without the Son There was never a moment “before” the Son existed. The Son is eternally from the Father, sharing His nature, His essence, His Godness. As John says in the opening of his Gospel, Jesus as the Son was/is “in the bosom of the Father”. This was historically understood that the Word always existed within the Father. When Christ Is Misunderstood: Modalism and Arianism Two ancient heresies emerge from misunderstanding “begotten, not made.” 1. Modalism (Sabellianism) This claims that: Father, Son, and Spirit are just different forms or roles of one person. This erases the real distinctions within the Trinity. If Modalism were true: Jesus is praying to Himself. The Father sending the Son is theatre. Christ’s baptism is a staged illusion. Modalism collapses the Persons into one persona wearing different masks. 2. Arianism Arius taught that: Jesus was created by God ex nihilo He is a divine-like being, but not equal in essence This makes Jesus the highest creature… but still a creature. If Jesus is created, then He cannot: reveal God perfectly unite humanity to God save us entirely and absolutely Only God can reconcile us to God. The Nicene Creed: Drawing a Line in the Sand At the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), the Church responded boldly and clearly: God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. This was a decisive boundary. begotten — of the same nature not made — not a creation of one being (homoousios) — equal in essence, not similar The Creed functioned like a theological guardrail. Christ is not “like God” — He is God. The creeds act as guardrails for orthodox interpretation Proverbs 8: Wisdom Begotten, Not Created The Fathers saw Proverbs 8 as speaking of the Son under the title “Wisdom”: The Lord begot me at the beginning of his work...
Luke J. Wilson | 01st December 2025 | Evangelism
On Sunday it was St Andrew’s Day and I was in church listening to a sermon about Andrew (and the namesake of our church), that often overlooked disciple, meeting Jesus for the first time. In John’s Gospel, it says: John 1:40–42One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’… He brought Simon to Jesus. As I sat there listening to our vicar speak about evangelism and how we should be more like Andrew in bringing people to meet Jesus, something from many, many years ago flickered to life in the back of my mind. A realisation I had long ago that gave me a great sense of freedom. Something I think I had forgotten, unfortunately (so thank God for the reminder!). There was a point in my life when I finally understood the relief of letting go of a burden I didn’t even realise I was carrying: it’s not my job to convert people. It was never Andrew’s. And it’s not yours either. Our role — our real and most basic calling — is simply to introduce people to Jesus. We get to be the planters and the waterers, but God is the one who brings the growth. As Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 3:6I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. When this truth sinks in, it strips away the pressure, the anxiety, and the awkward “sales-pitch” mentality that we sometimes (without realising it) attach to evangelism. And this ties into something even deeper: our basic calling as Christians is the Great Commission, Jesus’ final instruction to His followers: Matthew 28:19–20Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them… and teaching them… But it dawned on me that all of those actions: teaching, mentoring, discipling, baptising; they all come after someone has come to faith. We are not told to convert people. We are told to make disciples. Conversion is the doorway into discipleship, yes, but that moment of heart-opening and illumination belongs to God alone. Our job is simply to bring people to the Lord, to make the introduction. If they choose to stay, if they choose to follow then we begin the work of discipling, teaching, and baptising. Think of evangelism like inviting someone to a feast. We can bring someone to the meal, we can tell them how good it tastes, maybe even share how it changed our life… but whether or not they like the food is out of our control. That part isn’t up to us. Or to use an old expression: “you can lead a horse to water… but you can’t make it drink”. And honestly, that’s such a freeing realisation. It turns evangelism from a heavy responsibility into a joyful invitation: “Come and see.” “Come meet Him.” “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” That last phrase echoes the Psalm: Psalm 34:8O taste and see that the LORD is good. Andrew never argued Peter into belief. He never crafted an apologetic defence or theological persuasion. He simply said, “We’ve found the Messiah,” and he brought him to Jesus. That was enough. The rest was up to Jesus. And maybe that’s the model we need far more than we think. Evangelism isn’t a performance. It isn’t a debate. It isn’t a pressure. It’s an invitation. Once we realise that all the real work happens in the hands of God, it changes everything for us. It removes the fear. It removes the self-consciousness. It removes the burden of success or failure. Because there is no failure when your role is simply to point the way. So let’s be like Andrew: quietly faithful, gently invitational, always ready to say, “Come meet the one who changed everything for me”. Because at the end of the day, that’s all we were ever asked to do. ...
My new book is out now!
For a limited time, get it as a free eBook
Long before costumes, candy, and carved pumpkins, the night we now call Halloween was kept holy as the Eve of All Saints — a time to remember those who lit the darkness with faith.