I've met muslims who don't understand arabic but who nevertheless "read" it in the original arabic. I'm not sure what is gained by following the form and perhaps the sounds of words one has no understanding of, but there it is. Of course, there are many who take the time to learn arabic that they might read the Qu'ran in its original language. Whilst in Turkey I read some Islamic literature in English written to explain to non-muslims the merits of the muslim faith. This book mentioned one Turkish man who not only learned arabic but, out of respect for the Qu'ran, refused to speak with his non-arabic speaking family in anything but arabic. This man was held up as a good example of a very pious man in the islamic faith. Such is the reverence which exists for the Qu'ran and by extension, the arabic language.
If the Qu'ran is a true miracle of God, then surely it can stand up to close scrutiny and investigation. Emotions have a place in all religious issues, but we must not allow hot emotions to cloud our thinking or to cover otherwise glaring weaknesses should they become apparent. God gave us a mind - let us use it. In these questions of evaluation and investigation is not enough to simply chant, "There is but one God, Allah and Mohammed is His prophet.", "these are the teachings from your Lord" or any other muslim slogan. It is not enough to fiercely affirm what needs to be first tested.
Contradictions with the Bible
Say: "We believe in God, and that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the [Jewish] Tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them...". Arberry, Interpreted p.85.
Mohammed had obviously heard some Bible stories, but he seems to have got them confused and mixed up when it came out in his prophetic utterances. The stories in the Qu'ran relating to events described in the Bible contradict the Bible in many points, on historical, not so much doctrinal details. In Sura 2:241 Muhammed confuses the persons of Saul and Gideon. In Sura 2:55-60 the Israelites were said to be "a scanty band" vastly inferior to the Egyptians. But in Exodus 1:7-10 the Egyptian king said to his people that the Israelites had become "more and mightier than we". There are many other historical discrepancies.
The Qu'ran contradicts every existing manuscript we have of the Bible texts, yet the Qu'ran tells muslims to believe these earlier scriptures and "make no division between them". Is there a muslim alive who takes this to heart, and has seriously researched to find out what the Scriptures written before the time of Mohammed actually contained? Or was this verse only uttered in the beginning to bolster credibility for Mohammed's utterances, by making out that they belonged to a long and ancient tradition of true prophetic utterances which God gave to Moses, David and other prophets?
The Qu'ran itself does not directly imply that the Christian and Jewish scriptures had been corrupted at that time, but merely that the Christians and Jews had been hiding some of the truth. It is true that the Orthodox church was hiding a lot of the truth of the gospel by that time, but not the things which Mohammed was claiming! By the seventh century the Orthodox church was already way off course with its system of priestcraft, and was so corrupt in many places that people gladly renounced this corrupt system to embrace the new religion of Islam. Apparently the previous Scriptural truth had been so well hidden by Christians and Jews that Mohammed himself never had a chance to read the Bible for himself.
In practice, Mohammed never encouraged his followers to check out the
previous Scriptures, even when they became available. One time someone
came with a copy of the Jewish Torah and presented it to Mohammed.
This man was quickly "put in his place" with words to the effect that there
was no need to even look at it, since Mohammed's revelations were better.
Could it be that the spirit inspiring Mohammed was truly afraid that
the mere quotation of the writings of Moses would reveal serious holes
in Mohammed's own history and doctine?
This practical repudiation of the Scriptures in Islam helps to explain why there are so many contradictions between the Bible and the Qu'ran on even historical details. Neither Mohammed nor his followers bothered to check out the Scriptures. This isn't surprising, since Mohammed was illiterate and not even the Orthodox church leaders of that day (7th century) were really Scripturally based anyway. They had already begun to revert to priestcraft and idolatrous practices - the worshipping of the Queen of Heaven and icons, for example. In fact, I believe that it was the corruption of the so-called Orthodox church in those days which made the rise of Islam possible. If the Christians had been living, proclaiming and teaching the Bible in Arabia in the days of Mohammed, Islam would simply never have been able to take root. The "Orthodox" church of that time was indeed weak and corrupt and replete with heresies, making it an easy target for a new religion such as Islam.
When we come to doctrinal issues, especially in the New Testament, the contradictions between the Bible and the Qu'ran are even more evident. The New Testament repeatedly declares that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he was crucified and resurrected to pay for our sins and make possible our salvation, but the Qu'ran expressly denies all these things. The New Testament was written by people who walked with Jesus. Mohammed, however, only heard about him six centuries later and even what he heard he seems to have gotten confused. A muslim may argue that Mohammed got the truth directly from God, or through the angel Gabriel, and didn't need to be an eyewitness of any events concerning Christ. But why someone coming to the Qu'ran for the first time believe this? Is there any evidence? Apart from an appeal to blind faith in Mohammed, what external evidence exists to suggest that the Qu'ran truly is the Word of God?
The muslim may argue that the Bible was corrupted by Christians, but where is the solid evidence for this? The textual evidence for the New Testament is outstanding! Let a muslim tell me when the Bible was corrupted, by whom, and why it is that there is such overwhelming agreement between the different texts found in different places, many of which are dated to before the time of Mohammed. If Allah knew the texts were corrupted, why did he say "we make no division between" the former Scriptures and the revelations of Mohammed?
If you take the parts out of the New Testament which contradict the revelations in the Qu'ran, almost nothing would be left! In practice muslim apologists never tell us exactly which parts of the New Testament they believe to be corrupted. Like other non-Christians, muslims only take the occasional verse from the Bible out of context in order to prove their points.
The Proof offered by the Qu'ran of its own Divine Inspiration
The proof offered by in the Qu'ran for its inspiration is this: no one
can make a verse like one of the Suras. Well, I think I can, quite easily.
The way we can test it is this. Find me a group of muslims who have read
just part of the whole Qu'ran. I will present them each with two verses.
One will be from the Qu'ran, and one from my own imagination, imitating
the style of the Qu'ran. Each one will be asked to decide which is the
true Surah. If my verse get the same number of votes as the verse from
the real Qu'ran or more, then I suggest, I have su
Get your free registration and log in to view entire article
Post new comment