In an age where YouTube debates and viral soundbites often replace careful study, a recent discussion between Dr. William Lane Craig and Muhammad Hijab provided a rare opportunity to witness a doctrinal dispute and a clash of methods
By Dr. Tim Orr
In an age where YouTube debates and viral soundbites often replace careful study, a recent discussion between Dr. William Lane Craig and Muhammad Hijab provided a rare opportunity to witness a doctrinal dispute and a clash of methods. What unfolded was more than a disagreement about the Trinity—it was a revelation of how Christians and Muslims pursue, defend, and present theological truth. With millions watching, the debate became a window into two profoundly different traditions: one seeking coherence through Scripture and reason, the other employing rhetorical force and communal consensus.
Something that becomes clear in the debate is that we’re not just witnessing a clash of worldviews, but a clash of engagement strategies. William Lane Craig operates within the Western tradition, guided by reason, logical coherence, and a charitable posture toward his opponent. By contrast, Muhammad Hijab replaces reasoned engagement with gaslighting tactics—dodging arguments, reframing the conversation, and undermining the premise of Western discourse itself. His approach is rooted not in mutual understanding but in polemics drawn from the Islamic tradition, which often disregards the rules that govern classical Western debate.
This article explores the content and conduct of that debate, unpacking what it reveals about contemporary apologetics and the integrity of interfaith dialogue.
On a fall day in 2023, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and Muslim apologist Muhammad Hijab sat down for what was billed as a rigorous theological and philosophical discussion on the Trinity. Hosted by Capturing Christianity, the debate quickly revealed itself to be deeper, not just an intellectual joust, but a window into two fundamentally different worldviews. It wasn’t just the doctrine of the Trinity on trial. It was the method of truth-seeking itself: reasoned apologetics versus rhetorical polemics (Capturing Christianity, 2023). For Craig, truth is discovered through Scripture, reason, and philosophical clarity. For Hijab, the truth is reinforced by rhetorical dominance, appeals to tradition, and undermining the opponent’s intellectual credibility.
Craig came into the discussion with a clear aim: to defend a biblically faithful and philosophically coherent articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Relying on a model of Social Trinitarianism, Craig argued that God is one immaterial being who exists as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each with their center of self-consciousness, yet united in essence. Craig’s position was intriguing because of his insistence that this model be derived not from ecclesiastical tradition or conciliar authority, but from the biblical witness itself (Craig, n.d.). Craig was not interested in imposing speculative metaphysics onto Scripture but in allowing Scripture to dictate the shape of theology. He affirmed the full deity of each person of the Trinity while resisting classical formulations—such as the eternal generation of the Son—that, in his view, lack sufficient biblical basis.
This approach reflects Craig’s broader theological method, one rooted in the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. For Craig, no ancient or revered creed holds more authority than the biblical text. His confidence rests in Scripture teaching monotheism and a tri-personal God. To deny either is to do violence to the biblical witness. Craig’s model seeks to reconcile the apparent tension not through ad hoc analogies but by affirming the existence of one divine being with three centers of self-consciousness—each a distinct person, but all sharing in the one divine essence.
By contrast, Muhammad Hijab came prepared not to engage Craig’s proposal on its terms, but to dismantle it through rhetorical pressure and appeals to theological tradition. From the outset, Hijab portrayed Craig’s theology as deviating from mainstream Christian orthodoxy. He repeatedly criticized Craig for rejecting the Nicene doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation, insisting that this placed him outside the bounds of historical Christianity. He tried to frame Craig’s model as heterodox and incoherent.
Yet what stood out in Hijab’s approach was the absence of any meaningful engagement with the philosophical structure of Craig’s position. Rather than address Craig’s actual argument—that three centers of consciousness can exist within one immaterial being—Hijab resorted to analogies involving Cerberus, Siamese twins, and shared gym workouts. While rhetorically effective for an online audience, these images miss the conceptual sophistication of Craig’s framework. They serve to ridicule rather than to refute. In essence, Hijab substituted ridicule for reason.
This reflects a broader trend in contemporary Islamic polemics, often prioritizing emotional appeal and social persuasion over rigorous theological analysis. This emphasis stems from several epistemological and cultural trends within Islamic theology. Historically, Islamic thought has not undergone a Reformation-like movement that decentralized traditional authority structures in favor of direct engagement with scripture through reason. As a result, rhetorical dominance and appeals to ijmāʿ (consensus) frequently substitute for robust individual argumentation. Moreover, in many contemporary Muslim communities, identity and theological correctness are closely intertwined, meaning that emotional rhetoric resonates more deeply with audiences concerned with communal solidarity than with abstract metaphysical coherence. Thus, Hijab’s strategy in the debate reflects not merely personal style but a broader cultural habitus shaped by Islamic educational and theological norms. While Craig sought to clarify and refine doctrine, Hijab sought to expose and embarrass. His primary audience was not the open-minded seeker but the already-convinced follower.
Hijab’s strongest weapon in the debate was not logic but gaslighting. While the term is rhetorically strong, it captures the deliberate pattern of misrepresentation that Hijab employed to distort Craig’s theological stance. By persistently claiming that Craig's denial of the eternal generation placed him in alignment with Islamic theology, Hijab manipulated the narrative in a way that was misleading to viewers unfamiliar with nuanced Christian doctrinal debates. This tactic did not merely misrepresent Craig—it risked confusing the audience about the very nature of Trinitarian theology itself. Such mischaracterizations undermine the integrity of the debate by replacing genuine engagement with strawman tactics, fostering more heat than light. In doing so, Hijab deflected from addressing Craig’s theological claims, leaving his critique shallow despite its rhetorical intensity. At key moments, he sought to create confusion or cast doubt on Craig’s consistency by misrepresenting his views. He claimed Craig’s denial of eternal generation effectively placed him in agreement with the Qur’an’s denial of divine sonship, particularly Qur’an 112:3: “He neither begets nor is begotten.” But this was a straw man. Craig never affirmed the Qur’anic critique. His point was simply that eternal generation lacks clear New Testament support.
Hijab also repeatedly asserted that Craig’s view was fringe or marginal, as though theological popularity were a metric for truth. What Hijab never addressed was that Craig’s approach is standard fare for Protestant theology, which, since the Reformation, has judged all doctrinal developments by their fidelity to Scripture (Grudem, 1994). Hijab conflated church history with theological legitimacy, ignoring the Protestant tradition’s long-standing insistence that truth is not established by councils but by Scripture. Gaslighting occurs when one persistently misrepresents their opponent’s views to disorient and discredit them. Hijab’s repeated assertion that Craig “agreed with the Qur’an” was not only misleading but a deliberate attempt to paint Craig as betraying his faith.
Rather than rebut Craig’s distinctions between person and essence, Hijab insisted that the Trinity violates basic logic. If each person of the Trinity is God, and there is only one God, how can the Father not be the Son? But Craig anticipated this objection, citing the difference between the “is” of identity and the “is” of predication. The Father is God, and the Son is God—not in the sense that they are the same person, but in the sense that they each fully share in the one divine essence. This is no more illogical than saying that Peter, James, and John are each human without being the same human.
Hijab dismissed this as incomprehensible, but he offered no real philosophical rebuttal. He merely reiterated that such a doctrine seems irrational to him. In doing so, he failed to engage the rich tradition of Christian metaphysics that distinguishes between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person). This is not theological sleight of hand but the product of centuries of theological reflection grounded in biblical exegesis and philosophical reasoning (Morris, 2001). By failing even to acknowledge this framework, Hijab remained stuck critiquing a caricature.
Perhaps Hijab’s greatest misstep was his failure to recognize the metaphysical framework underlying Craig’s theology. Craig carefully defined God as a single immaterial substance, drawing implicitly from classical formulations like Augustine’s psychological model of the Trinity, in which memory, understanding, and will serve as analogues to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within a single mind. While not identical to Craig’s social Trinitarianism, this model helps explain how one being can possess multiple centers of consciousness without violating divine unity. By rooting his model in scriptural exegesis and philosophical coherence, Craig aligns with a long-standing tradition of attempting to articulate the mystery of the Trinity in ways that preserve both monotheism and personal distinction within the Godhead. Endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. This is not partialism, as Hijab repeatedly alleged, because each person is not a fraction of God but fully divine. Nor is it tritheism, because the three persons do not constitute three separate substances or beings.
Hijab’s repeated analogies to physical parts—like mothers birthing a child or people lifting weights—fail because they rely on material imagery to critique metaphysical doctrines. Such analogies collapse the essential distinction between the physical and the immaterial, ignoring centuries of classical theology that separate substance (what something is) from accidents (how something appears or functions). In Christian metaphysics, God is understood as a necessary, immaterial being, without parts, composition, or division in the way that material objects are. To equate divine personhood with spatially extended, physical parts is to commit a category error, misapplying the logic of created things to the uncreated Creator. These analogies may generate laughter or confusion, but cannot refute a doctrine built upon metaphysical nuance, philosophical coherence, and biblical revelation. Mothers birthing a child or people lifting weights—fail because they rely on material imagery to critique an immaterial being. These analogies confuse the metaphysical with the physical, failing to address Craig’s actual claims. His reference to the mythological dog Cerberus, which Craig used only as a conceptual springboard, was repeatedly misunderstood. Craig’s aim was not to equate God with a three-headed dog but to introduce the possibility that a single being could possess multiple centers of consciousness. Hijab, either knowingly or not, distorted this into a blasphemous comparison.
Despite the contentious nature of the debate, Craig remained measured and gracious. In his closing remarks, he chose not to return fire but to return to Christ. He invited Muslim viewers to consider the claims of Jesus of Nazareth and the historical evidence for the resurrection. Craig did not offer the Trinity as an abstract philosophical puzzle, but as the living reality of the God who sent his Son into the world. For Craig, theology is not merely a matter of correct propositions but a call to personal encounter with the risen Lord.
While Hijab closed with a call to accept the Qur’anic view of monotheism, Craig closed with an invitation to examine Jesus, a figure central to Christianity and Islam. The question is not “Is the Trinity coherent?” but “Is Jesus who he claimed to be?” Craig’s parting appeal reminded viewers that Christianity rises or falls not only on philosophical sophistication but also on the historical reality of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14). This final move did not abandon Craig’s earlier emphasis on Scripture and philosophy; rather, it crowned it. For Craig, rational coherence serves the purpose of opening the heart and mind to consider Christ himself. His gospel appeal was not a detour but the destination of his entire theological method—a method rooted in reason and revelation working in harmony. In that sense, Craig’s closing words complemented his arguments, showing that the Trinity is not merely defensible but existentially meaningful and grounded in the historical person of Jesus Christ. Not on philosophical sophistication but on the historical reality of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Ultimately, the debate revealed two different approaches to religious disagreement. Craig offered careful philosophical and exegetical reasoning grounded in the Christian tradition of faith seeking understanding. Hijab offered a confrontational style focused on undermining his opponent by conflating rhetoric with reason. To the untrained eye, Hijab’s aggression may have appeared forceful, but to those listening closely, Craig offered the only model with internal coherence and fidelity to the biblical witness. The Trinity may remain a mystery, but mystery is not the same as contradiction.
Craig’s strength lay in his deep understanding of the doctrine, commitment to biblical fidelity, and clarity of thought. Hijab’s strength lay in polemics—but polemics without philosophical precision cannot dismantle carefully reasoned theology. Ultimately, the contrast could not have been starker: one man reasoned from Scripture to truth; the other reasoned from assertion to accusation.
This conversation stands as a reminder that true interfaith dialogue requires passion, precision, critique, and comprehension. Ultimately, it is not rhetorical victory that matters, but truth. And for those willing to seek it with integrity, the doctrine of the Trinity, as Craig presented it, remains as compelling today as it was when Christians first confessed: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The coherence of the Trinity may stretch our minds, but it never breaks them. And that alone is reason enough to believe it is worthy of worship.
Capturing Christianity. (2023, November 21). Is the Trinity Coherent? | Dr. William Lane Craig vs. Mohammed Hijab [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjw34NkjQbs
Craig, W. L. (n.d.). A formulation and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. Reasonable Faith. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Inter-Varsity Press.
Morris, T. V. (2001). Our idea of God: An introduction to philosophical theology. InterVarsity Press.
Shumack, R. (2019). Witnessing to Western Muslims: A worldview approach to sharing faith. InterVarsity Press.