Attacks on the Qur'an have been around since the Book first appeared. In fact, in a remarkable verse, the Qur'an invites examination. The fourth surah(chapter) the 82nd ayah(verse). It says, "Have they not considered the Qur'an? If it was from other than Allah, Surely they would find in it many inconsistencies." Now while many theories have been offered to explain where the Qur'an came from, in the words of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Today no sensible person believes these theories." This leaves the Christian in some difficulty.
We also want to mention that no theory has been suggested as to the origin of the Qur'an that is not already commented on in the Qur'an itself. The Book is very unusual in that it replies to all it's critics.
When a verse of the Qur'an is said to be in error, the Muslim's natural urge is to correct the inaccurate interpretation. But we perform more efficiently if we are realistic. There is a difference in attitude between those who study the Qur'an and those who assault the Qur'an. A sincere questioner has open-mindedly accepted the challenge of this verse. Most often, however, the missionary both attacks and distorts the Qur'an. At the same time he pretends to be reasonable. This opponent is not interested in the proper understanding of any given verse. So, we may best proceed as outlined earlier in this talk. If someone comes to us to say,"This verse of the Qur'an is in error", we have to only show that the so-called difficulty originates in an interpretation of theirs which has not considered sufficiency, ambiguity, or acceptability. That is, we only need to show that a given interpretation is inadequate to build their case, or that the meaning of words has been overly restricted and it is not the only meaning possible, or that a meaning has been given which is actually impossible.
My own experience has often been that Christians who come forward with questions about the Qur'an will find the answers in the same place they found the questions. What frequently happens is, they have studied Muslim commentaries of the Qur'an, Tafsir. And, when they find an obscure point, they bring it forward to Muslims hoping that we are unaware of research and explanation that has already been done on the matter centuries ago.
Now what does the Qur'an say about the Bible? Certain missionary writers intend to tell not only Christians about the Qur'an, but they intend to tell Muslims about the Qur'an also. And they build a flimsy case in order to provoke controversy where there is none. They tell Muslims that the Qur'an says the Bible is accurate. They tell us that the Qur'an accuses Christians of changing the texts of their scriptures. The Qur'an does not make either of these assertions. By pointing to disagreements between the Qur'an and the Bible, they hope to make difficulty. Because, they say, "Your book says our book is accurate." By arguing for the preservation of ancient Biblical texts, they intend to cause still more confusion for Muslims because, they say, "Your book says our book has been changed." However, these tactics can only work if we admit the premises on which they stand, and we do not. First, the Qur'an states that Christians have access to the truth in their scriptures. It does not catalog the 66 small books called the Bible and label them as accurate. In fact, it condemns those who would claim divine inspiration for something that was actually composed by a man. Part of the Bible, as we will see, falls into this category. Second, the Qur'an does not accuse Christians of deliberately tampering with the original texts of their scriptures. Rather, it accuses them of manipulating the understanding of their scriptures. The deceptive translations that I mentioned earlier illustrate this kind of practice. We discussed the translation of the words messiah and saviour.
In short, the Muslim believes that the Bible contains the words of God, and more words besides these. This is the Muslim position, and it is actually the attitude of many Christians, most Christians. It is only a certain collection of Christians, the fundamentalists, who maintain that all of the Bible originated with God. Sticking to this belief is unjustified for at least four reasons. One, it is not claimed within the Bible itself, that it is totally inspired. Two, it is an unworthy attitude. Three, it is not self-consistent. And four, it is not logically possible.
In the first place, the Bible, nowhere, names itself. The word Bible is not in the Bible. 66 books have been combined as one book without any divine command to do so. Compare, for example, the opening of the book of Jonah quote, The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying...and so on , unquote. Compare that with the opening remarks of the writer of the third gospel account, The Gospel According to Luke, which begins by saying, "It seemed fitting for me to write it out", according to the New American Bible. You see, the first book of Jonah at least claims divine inspiration while the second makes no such claim. He says it seemed like a good idea to write it down. By trading on the vagueness of the words "scripture" and "book" the fundamentalists try to make a case for total inspiration of the Bible. For example, they quote 2nd Timothy 3:16 where Paul wrote to Timothy "All scripture is inspired of God" In the first place, it still remains to establish the authority of Paul. Did he speak for God in this place? But the real trickery is in the isolation of this verse. In the sentence before this, Paul indicated what he considered as scripture, mainly, that which Timothy studied as a child. When Timothy was a child, the last 27 books of the Bible had not been written. The last verses in today's Bible seem to conclude the whole of the Bible. In these verses, it warns against adding or subtracting contents in "this book". However, "this book" can only refer to this last book of the Bible, and not to the Bible itself. And the reason is clear. Any Christian reference will acknowledge that other books of the Bible were written after this one. That is, the last book in today's Bible was not the last one written. In fact, exactly which books should form the contents of the Bible was still being debated 300 years after Jesus.
Secondly, we said that total inspiration of the Bible meant an unworthy attitude. The official position of the Fundamentalist Churches is really a modification of the blunt statement, "The Bible is the perfect word of God". They consider the modification only slight, but it is actually ruinous. What they say officially is the Bible is "inerrant in the original manuscripts". That is, there are no mistakes in the original copies of the Bible, which we no longer have. If all the contradictions in the Bible could be explained as misunderstandings, why do they keep this excuse? By taking this position they admit that there are errors in the Bible. These are said to be only small copying errors made over the centuries as the scriptures were re-copied. They have disregarded the advice of Jesus, who said that carelessness in the little things means carelessness in larger matters - Luke chap. 16:10. The unworthy statement about today;s Bible is really, the Bible contains small mistakes, but no big ones.
Thirdly, we said the position of total inspiration for the Bible was not self-consistent. There are many copying errors in the Bible. The conflicting statistics of Ezra chap. 2 verse 5 and Nehemiah chap. 7 verse 10, for example. On the one hand, the fundamentalist admits this to be the case and excuses it as a minor copying error. On the other hand, he puts his trust in the statement of Isaiah 40:8 which says, "The word of our God stands forever." This verse does not go on to except minor details.cont. Isaiah 40:8 does not say, "The word of our God stands forever, except for some of the small details." According to this verse, if God says it, it does not get lost. But mistakes of re-copying mean something of the original has been lost. It is inconsistent to excuse error, and at the same time, disallow error. The only solution is to drop the notion of total divine inspiration of the Bible.
And fourthly we said that total inspiration was illogical. Because it is denied within the Bible, and it is disproved within the Bible. At 1 Corinthians 7:25 the Bible writer specifically says that he is about to make a statement which did not originate with God. Inspiration is disavowed. In the first chap. of Titus we have a counter example which disproves total divine inspiration. Paul, in this place, quoted the famous Ecumenides paradox. He specified that Ecumenides was a Cretan, and he quoted him as saying, "Cretans are always liars". He then says that the man spoke the truth. But when the statement is spoken by a Cretan it is definitely not true. If it was true then at least once a Cretan was not a liar, in which case the statement is false, and the conclusion is the denial of the assumption and so the statemement is not true. The writer Paul, at least on this occasion, was without divine guidance, for he did not discern this subtlety.
The Christian who would preach to Muslims must first be prepared to allow us to clearly establish our own position. Otherwise he confronts a man of straw, but misses the target of genuine Islam. His comparisons of the Bible and the Qur'an most often seem to be shallow and misleading.
As with the matter discussed earlier, the deification of Jesus, our most fruitful debates will be those that consider why, not how. If the Chirstian wishes to prove his stand he must justify it after explaining it. Conversely, if he would attack our stand he must understand it correctly before he insists that we justify it.
Finally, this is not an attack on the Bible. It is an attack on an unjustified attitude held by some concerning the Bible. Remember, the Muslim believes the Bible to contain God's words, but he does not accept the entire contents as such.
Now, a final suggestion. Christian belief reduces to this. They say, "The Jews have always had an inocrrect idea about the messiah. That is, while the Jews expect someone who is only son of God in a figurative sense, Jesus told the Jews that the messiah was literally, really the son of God. This is what Christians say. And in this frame of mind the Christian can point ot every Biblical account of Jesus being hated by Jews, and claim that it was this new truth that Jesus told them that made them so upset. But there are important facts to consider. The concept of the messiah was gradually formed by the Jews and opinions differed. WHile several men had already been called messiah, son of man, and son of God in the Jewish scriptures, the Jews came to expect a most special pre-eminent messiah. A victorious leader thru whom their nation would be a blessing to all the world. Our suggestion is this: Suppose instead that Jesus meant to tell the Jews that while he also deserved to be called messiah, son of God, son of man, he was not about to fulfill their unrealistic and misunderstood expectations. Now, several mysteries are clarified. Jesus could not have meant to claim status as the most special messiah by his continual use of the term son of man because he told his disciples not to tell anyone he was the messiah - Luke chap 9. Notice how in one place he talked a man out of following him because the man may have had mistaken ideas - Matt. chap 8. While many Jews believe that the messiah would inherit his kingly rights from David, Jesus pointed out the difficulties of this interpretation - Matt chap 22. Note also that today's Jewish scholars have indicated that son of God is given its Christian meaning, not by Jesus, but by Paul. Meanwhile, some Jewish aspects have been adopted. It was Paul who incited Christians to find symbolic meaning in scripture, and so we have impossible parallels. Like that of Matt. chap. 2, which quotes a fragment of Hosea chap 11, and thus likens Jesus to an idolatrous nation.
We have the unprecedented case of a prophet who supposedly would die and then return to fulfill all things expected of him. At Acts chap. 3 the disciple gives a speech where he promises the return of Jesus. He says that Jesus cannot return until all prophecies given by God are fulfilled. And then he proceeds to quote one prophecy which was delivered thru Moses. Now Christians understand the quotation of Moses to refer to Jesus himself, instead of being a promise of someone who is yet to come in fulfillment of a prophecy before the return of Jesus can take place. The verse quoted by Peter in this place reports that God told Moses about a prophet, "like you from among your brothers". That is, the brothers of the Israelites. Where Jesus was unlike Moses in being leader of a nation, Christians believe that he will be victorious on his second visit. However, they do not usually expect him to aquire a human father, a wife and children, and then die of old age, like Moses. Moreover, "from among their brothers", seems to indicate, not an Israelite in the first place, but someone who is a relative of that nation.
There is another historical figure who fits the role as the prophet promised by Moses better than Jesus. He was not an Israelite, but Jesus said that God's special favours would be taken from Israel and given to a nation which would become fruitful - Matt chap. 21. It was Jacob, or Israel the man himself, who prophecied that the kingdom would be the possession of his son Judah until the coming of the one who it belonged to - Genesis chap 49. While Christians see this "one who it belongs to" as being Jesus, look again at these words. When I give a man something and tell him to keep it until the owner comes, do I mean to say that the item belongs to one of his descendants? This is hardly a natural interpretation.
The many Qur'anic and Biblical references to the last prophet are a new subject, a satisfying discussion that unavoidably leads to the messenger who brought Islam to a nation, and thru them, to all the nations.
May Allah guide us always closer to the truth.
