Each objection is put in the form a Christian apologist would accept, then answered.
Replies to four named articles are on Responses to named articles.
“The Qur’an tells the People of the Injīl to judge by what God sent down (5:47), so the Injīl in their hands must be reliable.”
The verse tells them to judge by what God revealed in it. It does not say which book they then held, and the Qur’an elsewhere says the Injīl was given to ʿĪsā (5:46). The question is what the Injīl is, and whether the four gospels are it. See the Islamic Dilemma.
“The New Testament manuscripts are early and abundant, so the text has been preserved.”
Scholarly consensus
The manuscripts show that the text of the gospels has been copied with care and is largely stable. They show the text of the gospels. They do not show that the gospels are the Injīl that was given to ʿĪsā. Preservation of a text and identity of a revelation are separate questions.
“Muslims say the gospels were corrupted, yet the Qur’an never says so.”
Muslim scholars have held two views: that the text was altered (taḥrīf al-lafẓ), and that the meaning was twisted by false interpretation (taḥrīf al-maʿnā). Classical scholars were divided between the two. This website argues from the Qur’an as the measure and does not rest on the first.
“Paul of Tarsus was an apostle, chosen by the risen Christ.”
That is Paul of Tarsus’s own claim (Galatians 1:11-17), and Acts repeats it. It is the claim at issue. See Acts against Galatians.
“For Christians the Gospel is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, not a book given to him.”
This is the objection in the Oasis Foundation and McGrath Institute video “The Gospel(s) in Islam and Christianity” (Reasons for Our Hope, 16 February 2022). It is stated fairly: the Qur’an does say that God gave ʿĪsā the Injīl (3:48; 5:46; 57:27), and Christians do use “gospel” for the message about Jesus. The early titles, “the gospel according to Mark”, say the same.
Islamic position
The two uses of the word do not agree, and that is the point. The Qur’an speaks of a revelation given to ʿĪsā. The four gospels are accounts of him written by others, and none claims to be a book given to him. The video’s own analogy of the same word meaning different things leaves open which one the Qur’an refers to. The reply therefore turns on what ʿĪsā was given, not on what Christians call the gospel.
Two claims in the video go further than the evidence. It says the message rests on “the eyewitness reports of the apostles”. Mark is not an eyewitness account, and Luke 1:1-4 admits earlier sources (see the synoptic problem). It also says four “complementary proclamations” were willed. The gospels differ on matters of fact, as the discrepancy tables show.
“Jesus’ crucifixion is certain history.”
Agreed. The page on the end of his earthly mission says so plainly, and sets the Qur’an’s statement beside it without blending the two.