Evidence for God from Science

I did read those quotes. It does not say that people will deceive but Allah will spread the truth; it says that people will deceive but Allah is the best deceiver. Very clearly, the Quranic argument is not that Allah counters deceit with truth, but participates in deceit just as evildoers do. Regardless, if you believe that deception is deception one way or another, then wouldn't you agree with that?

If people are so inured into evil that they cannot change their mind anyway, I don't see a problem with God giving them up. At that point, it doesn't matter. On the other hand, the Quran indicates that Allah actively participates in deceiving people who are not past that point. My conclusion on those points should be clear.

As for your comments on wikiislam, unless it can be shown that this article is factually inaccurate, I will continue to believe it's reliable. As a Wiki, the site will have a multitude of authors. If one of them linked to a hate site, that doesn't mean that every single piece of information is factually incorrect. This article looks solid.

Citing any website that explicitly claims its mission is to discredit something and that it will not ever, under any circumstances accept a positive aspect of that thing is a good way to distort your view of the world. No reasonable person should trust people who say outright that they are only interested in "fact-based biased information."

I'm not a fan of Islam as a whole and I take offense to many aspects of it. Of course, I also disagree with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on. I simply think in this case that it is utterly ridiculous to only look at one side, and accept a website's view as trustworthy when they openly admit that they do not accept any counterarguments or other viewpoints at all. Would I trust a site that openly bashes Christianity but refused to look at the positives of it or the counterarguments to their biased view? No, I would not. It's just not intellectually responsible.

Unless it can be shown that WikiIslam is telling falsehoods in this article, then I don't care what else they do. Biased people can still tell the truth, and this article has an indicia of reliability because it relies on valid, external sources like the Hans Wehr Arabic dictionary.

Let's not get caught up in the Internet's favorite fallacy: going back and forth about the true motives of a source when the facts are what's really at issue. The article is clearly not the sole product of opinion, so if it's incorrect, then that should be easily proven. If it's factually correct despite being on a biased website, then there's no reason to disregard it simply because you don't like what the website does.

The name "Allah" in a form is present in our bible "El'ah" is both feminine and masculine "neuter" Allah is the masculine name for El'ah, that is in harmony with scripture that God the Father is in fact always a "he" The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. When you put Christ into the equation the Islamic vs. Christianity (mainstream version) falls apart on both sides. The God of Jesus is the one true God as the words of Jesus clearly state. With the Islamic faith saying that Jesus is a prophet, well that is a fact on both sides.