Qur’anic Introduction

The Qur’an itself

---

I. Introduction

In this time I am going to give a brief overview of the orthodox Islamic view of the Qur’an and, in addition to this I want to concentrate on why it has such a place of devotion and awe in the hearts and minds of Muslims. It is easy for us as outsiders to treat the Qur’an academically and miss how much it fills the hearts and minds of our Muslim neighbours. I want you to understand how Muslims feel about the Qur’an as well as how they think about it.

After talking about the Qur’an, I will then go on to present two areas of the Qur’an’s teaching that have special importance to us as Christians seeking to share the gospel with Muslims: 1) how the Qur’an presents Jesus and 2) how the Qur’an views Christians. By surveying these three things, the Qur’an itself, it’s view of Jesus, and its view of us, I hope you will better understand the difficult terrain we find ourselves in when we speak to Muslims about Jesus and the Gospel.

The Qur’an is central to your Muslim friend’s heart and mind. He has probably been raised to view it as the most precious thing given to mankind. He has heard its words and rhythms prayed, chanted, spoken, and recited in his home, in the mosque, and in his community since infancy. It has always been treated as the most holy object in the family’s possession. It is never to be questioned and felt and thought to be the best, most noble, most complete, perfect revelation from God. Your Muslim friend has had this book implanted in his mind and it is always there, regardless of how much Western education may have been added. It is essential that you realise this book makes up the fabric of Muslim minds in order to be able to respond to your friend wisely and effectively.

Miscellaneous Qur’an facts:

The Qur’an is comparable in length to the New Testament. It has 114 chapters, called Surah’s. They are arranged roughly according to their length, the longest ones coming at the beginning of the Qur’an and the shorter ones coming toward the end. There is no thematic or chronological progression in the Qur’an. Portions of varying length and content are mixed together in the Surahs often without any unifying theme or progression of thought. The names of the different surahs do not usually refer to the content of the surah but are taken from a prominent word or thought in it. When referring to a certain surah, Muslims will use its name not its number. The Qur’an is also divided into 30 equal parts called “juz'” in order for the whole to be recited over the 30 days of Ramadan, the month of fasting. Individual verses are called “aya’s.” The length of verses varies like the length of surahs, some being very long and some being very short.

Modern translations of the Qur’an will also have information in the heading as to what part of Muhammad’s career the surah was supposedly revealed. Those that came to him while he lived in Mecca are called Meccan. Those that came to him in Medina are called Medinan.

The overall style of the Qur’an is that of a rhyming prose, often with an underlying rhythm of stresses of similar sounds. There is no fixed meter like in much of English poetry. Also, most of it is cast in a dramatic form of someone addressing Muhammad, rather than Muhammad addressing his fellow men. It is held to be the direct speech of God to Muhammad and it presents the Qur’an as having come to Muhammad from outside of himself either directly from God or through an angel.

II. Where the Qur’an came from: the Orthodox View

I am presenting to you the main view you will probably hear from Muslims in the West. There are many variations of Muslim belief, particularly among Shiite Muslims you may meet from Iran, but the majority view being promoted the most is as follows:

Qur’an’s Origin

It is considered to be divine in origin. It is the earthly edition of an eternal book preserved in heaven called the ‘eternal tablet’ (Surah 85:21,22). It was revealed to Muhammad in fragments over a twenty-three year period generally through the angel Gabriel. The language it was revealed in was Arabic which is considered to be the sacred language. It is held to be the very word of Allah in both word and spirit.

Muhammad’s Revelations

Allah revealed the contents of the Qur’an through three methods of divine inspiration. ‘Wahy’ is the Arabic term for inspiration. Surah 42:51 tells of the three methods:

1. by direct inspiration,

2. by Allah speaking from behind a veil,

3. through an angelic messenger.

The Qur’an does not record much on how Muhammad experienced these revelations though the traditions (Hadith) list many ways they occurred. Here is a partial list: through dreams while asleep, through visions while awake, an angel appearing in the form of a young man, an angel appearing as an angel, through rapture, and like the sound of a bell. These experiences also tended to be physically painful and oppressive.

The contents of the Qur’an in heaven were dictated to Muhammad through the above mentioned means. They are regarded as Allah’s words and in no way are regarded as coming through the personality or mental faculties of Muhammad himself. Muhammad was only a divinely appointed receiver of the text of Qur’an.

These revelations were then recited by Muhammad to his followers who would in turn memorize them. Some portions were written down on various media (leather, palm leaves, bones, pottery pieces, etc.). Some modern Muslim scholars allege that there was a complete written copy of the Qur’an in existence before Muhammad died but there is no written evidence from the early years of Islam to justify that assertion. Muhammad himself is reputed to have been illiterate and not able to have written down a single bit of the Qur’an. Regardless of how much of the Qur’an was written down originally, it appears that memorization was regarded as the more important method of retention over writing.

The Qur’an’s Compilation

The work of organizing the Qur’an into a complete written document was probably not accomplished in Muhammad’s lifetime because of the above mentioned situation and the additional condition that new revelation or changes could have been given to Muhammad until his death. Muhammad died in 632 AD In 633 AD several of the Muslims who had memorized the Qur’an were killed in a battle. This motivated Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr to authorize the formal collection of the Qur’an. He appointed one of Muhammad’s secretaries, Zaid Ibn Thabit, and one of Muhammad’s close companions, Umar, to accomplish the task.

Zaid assembled the portions of the Qur’an from the various written materials he collected as well as the memories of many Muslims. He made a wide search for portions and required each portion to be attested by two witnesses. The sheets he produced were first kept with Abu Bakr, then Umar, and then Hafsa, Umar’s daughter. Zaid was not, though, the only one to possess a written collection. Other Muslims had collected most or all of the Qur’an for themselves. the traditions relate that there were as many as fifteen of these collections. These collections differed in length, spelling, voweling, choice of words, and the number of surahs. These different collections led to differences in the recitation of the Qur’an. These differences grew to threaten the unity of Islam in the reign of the Khaliph Uthman (Khaliph after Umar and Abu Bakr).

Uthman formed a committee (c. 653 AD) to create an authorised version from the divergent versions. He is reputed to have used the copy entrusted to Hafsa as the basis for the new version. When this was completed copies of it were prepared and sent to all the important cities of the empire with the orders that all variant and/or old copies were to be burned. Though there was some resistance to this measure and many continued to recite their old versions, Uthman’s version prevailed. The orthodox Muslim view is that this version represents the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad perfectly, and has been passed down to the present without change.

This is the view most Muslims on your campus will assert and defend. For now, keep it tucked away that there are many problems with this view. Within the most authoritative Islamic traditions there are many other accounts that contradict this view. Outside of Islamic traditions there is no evidence to support this view of the history of the Qur’an’s text. The historical value of the Islamic traditions is also open to serious question because they contradict each other and were mostly written at least 150 years after the events they record. Though there is poor evidence to support the orthodox Islamic view of the Qur’an, Muslims passionately believe it to be true and find it very hard to consider the historical evidence.

III. How the Qur’an affects your Muslim neighbour’s daily life

This book affects his thinking in all areas of life:

• personal devotion to God

• public religious practice

• personal hygeine marriage

• family life

• community life

• work

• politics

• other religions and cultures

• the afterlife

It is believed to be God’s revealed will for mankind for all areas of life. Muslims make a big point of saying the Qur’an provides a complete way of life. By this they mean that the Qur’an and the traditions give them a complete set of rules to guide every facet of daily life. It gives a Muslim his values for what is good and bad, for what are righteous deeds and sinful deeds, and gives him all the norms for his daily life. Though in reality the Qur’an is enormously supplemented by other Islamic traditions, it is viewed as the basis and final authority for all Islamic life and law.

IV. How your Muslim neighbour feels about the Qur’an

To a Muslim, when he hears the Qur’an recited it is God’s voice to him instructing him in his duty. When he recites its words he believes he is reciting the very words of God, eternal words having their origin in heaven itself. Because of this idea of its origin Muslims believe the Qur’an is above criticism. To them it is the holiest object in this world and they surround the Qur’an with an aura of mystery, power, and magic. The sound of it being chanted can be hypnotic and moving. They believe it retains its heaven-borne majesty, nobility, and incomprehensibility. They approach the Qur’an with fear, humility, and awe. They do special washings and prayers before reading it. They put it away on a high shelf so it is the highest thing in the room. They won’t put it on the floor or where anyone is apt to sit.

Also, the Qur’an spoken and written is used in treating illness, in warding off evil spirits, in getting protection in all kinds of circumstances, in gaining blessings and in making curses. It is seen to be a powerful book and its uses in granting the Muslim spiritual power are more important to the average Muslim than understanding the meaning of the text.

V. Addressing the Qur’an’s agenda: problems with the Orthodox View

The main problem with the orthodox view is its assertion that it perfectly preserves the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad. Muslims claim it to be perfect because their faith rests in its being dictated by Allah to Muhammad. Their theological doctrine of inspiration requires them to have a perfectly recorded and transmitted revelation. They think that any human contribution would necessarily introduce errors. Unfortunately for them, the evidence to support the claim of perfection is wanting.

A. Perfection of the Qur’an’s text cannot be maintained

Claims to perfect transmission of the text do not stand up to scrutiny, either from within existing Islamic traditions or from the viewpoint of Western critical studies. John Gilchrist’s books and booklets are excellent for documentation on this. Another useful book is Ahmad Von Denffer’s book, ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an, published by the Islamic Foundation which documents variations to the accepted text of the Qur’an. From these four lines of argument against the Qur’an’s perfection emerge, just from within authoritative Islamic traditions.

1. The traditional accounts contradict each other on the precise manner of the gathering, preservation, editing, and transmission of the Qur’an text. There is no way to determine what really happened.

2. There is no firm evidence that Uthman’s version was better than the ones that were incinerated. Rather, there is good evidence that some of the ones burned were better versions.

3. The Arabic script at the time of Muhammad was imprecise and this introduced ambiguity over precise choices of wording in numerous places in the Qur’an.

4. There are no Qur’an manuscripts dating back to the time of Muhammad or even Uthman that can act as an objective standard for faithfulness of the preservation of the Qur’an’s text until today.

B. Evidence from outside the Islamic tradition casts doubt on the reliability of the text of the Qur’an

There are details about this elsewhere on this site e.g. the historical topic. Instead of supporting the Muslim’s view of the Qur’an, contemporary scholarship in archaeology, textual analysis, and related disciplines is confirming a very human picture of the Qur’an’s origin, rather than a divine one.

C. Borrowing from other religions in the Qur’an

The stories and teaching in the Qur’an show much borrowing from the religions that were present in and around the Arabian peninsula in the 7th and 8th centuries AD. Jewish traditions and apocryphal books, Christian apocryphal books and heretical groups, Zoarastrianism, and Arabian tribal religion provide the sources for many of the accounts in the Qur’an. The one group conspicuously absent is orthodox Christianity, which also fits the time of the Qur’an’s origin because Arabia and the Middle East were the places heretical Christian groups looked to for escape from the control of the Byzantine Empire.

D. The Qur’an is never seriously subjected to criticism

The thought of the Qur’an being a perfectly preserved book from heaven is the basis to a Muslim that Islam is superior to all religions. This strongly asserted idea, believed to be fact, is the main support for the Muslims’ belief in the Qur’an’s supremacy and uniqueness. Key ideas tied with this are the beauty of its language and the idea that the Qur’an is too sublime to imitate. These are the bases of belief in the Qur’an’s superiority over the Bible, not that it has a better historical basis for its text, nor that its claims to confirming prior scriptures stand scrutiny. To avoid these historical questions that undermine its authority Muslims have manufactured other criteria for justifying their belief in the Qur’an like:

• problems with the Bible

• scientific facts revealed in the Qur’an

• Muhammad fulfilling Bible prophecy

• The Qur’an being inimitable

When confronted with the hard questions about the Qur’an they will often try to turn the discussion to attack the Bible or pursue a line of reasoning with the Qur’an that is subjective, unreasonable, or irrelevant.

VI. Considerations for Christian understanding and witness

Arguments for the Qur’an’s perfection are used to bolster Muslim’s faith in the superiority of their revelation over the Bible. Because Christians do not present the Bible as a perfect copy of a heavenly book Muslims feel theirs is superior. They are taught that the Qur’an supersedes the Bible and corrects the corruptions that Christians introduced. When they see discrepancies between the Bible and the Qur’an they assume the problem is with the Bible since they think their Qur’an is perfect. Yet they are wrong. The Bible accurately presents what the disciples said Jesus did and taught. The Muslim must face that the Qur’an says it confirms the prior scriptures yet presents those same scriptures in a false light. Then he must make a choice of faith: faith in a book without historical evidence to support its claims or faith in a book that has survived and overcome centuries of honest investigation.

The Christian view of the inspiration of Scripture honestly faces the issues of textual transmission and preservation and the involvement of fallible humans in the giving of divine revelation. It faces them and provides a sound basis for faith. The Islamic view does not honestly face these issues and Muslims seek to bolster its weaknesses with dogmatism, ignorance, and bravado. May we as Christians show our strength with humility, honesty, and patience as we ask God to open the eyes of our blind friends.

Recommended Books

Burton, John, The Collection of the Qur’an. Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, The Codification of the Qur’an Text. Jesus To The Muslims, PO Box 1804, Benoni 1500, Republic of South Africa, 1989.

The Qur’an, The Scripture of Islam. MERCSA Muslim Evangelism Resource Centre of Southern Africa, PO Box 342, Mondeor. 2110. South Africa, 1995.

Von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an, An Introduction to the Sciences of Qur’an. The Islamic Foundation, 223 London Road, Leicester, LE2 1ZE.

Watt, W.M., Introduction to the Qur’an. Edinburgh University Press, 1970.

The Qur’an’s view of Christians: Sincere or Sinister?

Why are Muslims so hesitant to listen to Christians? Why are Christian views and arguments so often dismissed without any real consideration? Why do Muslims seem appreciative of Christian virtues and piety, yet refuse to consider Christian truth? Before one looks for answers from modern or medieval politics, or from culture or sociology, one should go to the heart and fountain of Islam, the Qur’an. Its references to Christians provide the basis for much of the ensuing history of Christian/Muslim relations. They also provide the basis for much of current Islamic attitudes and actions toward Christians and the West.

Qur’anic references to Christians are both positive and negative. Here are items of praise toward Christians. Some are sincere and pious, engaged in good works and pious in devotions. There is an Islamic emphasis of piety: reciting revelation during the night, falling prostrate in prayer, enjoining right conduct and forbidding indecency. Some show humility and entire devotion to God. Christians are said to be closer to Muslims than Jews and idolaters. (3:110-115,199; 5:82)

Some Christians are also praised for their character. Some are trustworthy with money (3:75), examples of moderation (5:66), merciful and compassionate following the example of Jesus (57:27). Sincere Christians are also said to not be worthy of hell (2:62; 5:69).

These few examples of praise, however, are overbalanced by verses warning of the wickedness of Christians. This wickedness is presented as being in beliefs as well as actions. For example, when Christians reject the Qur’an it is said to be due to unreasonable wickedness and deceit (3:21; 98:6; 5:49; 62:5). Christians are charged with knowingly concealing the fact of the Qur’an’s truth. Questioning the authenticity of the Qur’an proves one’s wickedness (2:146; 3:71; 5:15). Christians are also accused of using deception to proselytise Muslims even to the point of misrepresenting their own scriptures and using seductive tactics that misrepresent Islam (2:120; 3:78; 3:99,100; 4:44; 5:49). It is interesting to note that sincere concern for the truth or the eternal welfare of Muslims is never recognised as being a Christian’s true motive for desiring a Muslim’s conversion.

To these are added miscellaneous charges of wickedness. Some Christians will steal if entrusted with money (3:75). Most Christians are wicked in their lifestyles (3:110; 5:59,66; 57:27). Christians have a great hatred for Muslims in their hearts which they deceitfully hide (3:118,119). Christians rejoice when disaster befalls Muslims. They also act toward Muslims with guile (3:120). Christians compete with one another to make illicit profits (5:62). Christian priests don’t forbid their people’s sins and instead commit them themselves (5:63). Christian monks devour wealth wantonly and barr people’s way to the truth (9:34). Christians display pride, enmity and hatred in their factionalism among themselves (5:14; 30:32). Many of these do occur, to our shame. Most of these sins are ones that Jesus Himself condemned, especially concerning the Pharisees. The most serious aspect of these is that they are presented as the normal way of life for Christians, not as the exceptions.

To these are added accusations that Christians teach perverse doctrines. Christ’s Sonship is the prime example (9:30). Christians made a prophet out to be their Lord, ascribing deity to him, committing the supreme blasphemy (3:79,80; 4:48,171; 5:17; 9:31). Any reference to the Trinity is included in this. Christians disobey their own Book, stress falsehoods in their religion, and exaggerate in their teaching (5:66,77; 4:171). Monasticism and saint worship are condemned (57:27; 9:31). Before Muhammad came, Christians were lost in error. Islam and the Qur’an are the only remedies (98:1).

In view of these accusations, it is only natural for the Qur’an to warn Muslims about friendship with Christians. As a general rule Muslims are not to take Christians for friends, especially over Muslims (3:118; 4:144; 5:51,57). The only exception given is if you need to have them as your friend to guard your own security (3:28). To this basis add the events of history, current global politics, cultural and social dynamics. There is much to foster skepticism and paranoia among Muslims. Thankfully, most Muslims I have met are more open to Christian friendship than all of these factors encourage. Also, Muslim writers and teachers in the West often reduce the strength of the Qur’anic accusations by saying the Qur’an verses refer to specific instances in the life of Muhammad rather than presenting a general rule. Many Muslims have found Christians to be trustworthy and caring and let their experiences shape their attitudes. But even with these, it must be recognised that the Qur’an does not encourage Muslims to understand their Christian neighbours and embrace them in friendship. Instead, Muslims are encouraged to be on their guard. May we by our actions and words earn their trust and confidence.

Conclusions

The Qur’an promotes exceptionally negative views of Christians and Christianity. These views support Islamic convictions of superiority over Christianity. These negative views are a great obstacle to Muslims realistically considering the gospel. For the gospel to gain a hearing, these views must be challenged and overturned.

Two courses of action can overturn them. First, Christians need to live conspicuous lives of genuine love and holiness. Any practice or attitude that can be interpreted as deceitful, hateful, abusive, or demeaning has no place in our lives. We need to show Muslims love and compassion. Also, we cannot meet irrational dogmatism with anger, frustration, or exasperation. We need to be direct, but with courtesy and tact.

Second, we should clearly and patiently refute the Qur’an’s misrepresentations of Christian doctrine. The Qur’an’s challenges are superficial and can be answered historically, theologically, and scripturally with consistency and logic. There is nothing for us to apologise for in the mysteries of the Trinity or Christ’s Sonship. There are ways to talk about them with clarity, reverence, and persuasiveness. The Bible is the Qur’an’s great superior in truth, wisdom, and revelation. We need to seize the initiative on these topics and not let Muslims put us on the defensive.

Two of Paul’s admonitions to us from the Bible are appropriate to draw these thoughts to a close.

But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held by him to do his will.
2 Timothy 2:23-26

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
2 Corinthians 4:1-2

Presented by Keith E. Small, 6 December 1997

The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures

Antoin MacRuaidh

---

1. Introduction

Islam is a prophetic-revelatory religion whose faith and practice centres on its holy book, the Qur’an. Muslims believe that there have been one hundred and four revelatory books – ten to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Enoch, ten to Abraham, one to Moses, one to David, one to Jesus and one to Muhammad. All but those of Abraham, Moses David, Jesus and Muhammad have been taken up to Paradise, and the Book of Abraham is no longer extant. Those that remained, apart from that of Muhammad, are those revealed to Moses, the Tawrah (Torah), to David, the Zabur (Psalms), and that given to Jesus, the Injil(Gospel). The Mosaic and Davidic books mentioned in the Qur’an resemble the Jewish structure of the Tenak (Old Testament) – the Torah, Nebi’im and Kethubim – the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, the last-mentioned often termed ‘the Psalms’ after the first book in the section. Of course, there is no reference in the Qur’an to the Nebi’im, although Islam’s holy book does refer to a number of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, nor is there any reference to the Kethubim, and the reference to the Psalms being given to David indicates that only the individual book of that name is concerned, rather than the entire section of the Tenak sometimes denoted by the term.

The Muslim, as opposed to Qur’anic, charge of corruption against the Bible usually refers to al-tahrif al-lafzi, changing the actual text, rather than al-tahrif al-ma’nawi, misinterpreting such. It should be said at the outset that nowhere does either the Qur’an or the Hadith present us with the idea that the Books of Moses, David and Jesus have been lost, removed or even corrupted, despite the view of many Muslims on the issue. However, as we study the sources of Islamic revelation, we find that while there are similarities between the Jewish-Christian Scriptures and the Books mentioned in the Qur’an, there are also important differences. These distinctions, together with the obvious differences in theology between the Bible and the Qur’an, lie at the heart of the controversy over Scriptural identity between Islam and Christianity.

2. The Nature and Status of the Qur’an

The most difficult aspect of understanding the traditional Muslim view of the Christian Scriptures is caused by the distinct point of reference. Obviously, the Muslim looks at the Bible from the standpoint of that with which he is familiar – his holy book. A Muslim coming to the Bible for the first time finds it difficult to understand what he is encountering. It is not just that he has been continually regaled from infancy with tales of how the Bible has been changed. It is primarily because the nature, structure and teaching of the Bible do not adhere to that of the Qur’an. The Muslim, from his reading of the Qur’an,has a fixed idea not simply about the content of divine revelation (i.e. Islamic doctrine), but also its form and character. He looks at the Bible through the lens of the Qur’an, which he believes to be the ultimate inscripturated revelation from God. The holy book of Islam sets the pattern for the characteristic of an inspired Scripture. In order to see why the charge of corruption against the Bible has arisen among Muslims, we must first understand the nature of the Qur’an in Islam.

2.1 The Nature of the Qur’an

The Qur’an is believed by Sunnis (though not by Shi’is) to be the eternal, uncreated word of God. The source of this belief is found in the Qur’an itself, in the concept that there eternally exists in Paradise (and is therefore free from human influence) the Preserved Tablet, (Lawh-i-Mahfuz), the eternal Word of God, from which revelation descends to humanity. It is termed ‘The Mother of the Book ‘ (Umm-ul-Kitab). The Muslim Qur’anic translator and commentator Yusuf Ali says:

For: 43. 4

…The Mother of the Book, the Foundation of Revelation, the Preserved Tablet (Lauh Mahfuz. lxxxv. 22), is the core or essence of revelation…The Mother of the Book is in Allah’s own Presence…

The Islamic scholar Mawdudi states:

‘Umm al-Kitab’: the ‘Original Book’: the Book from which all the Books sent down to the prophets have been derived. In Surah Al Waqi’ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah al-Buruj: 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference…Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages…they brought one and the same Din (Religion). The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different…they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, he raised a prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion…

Hence, according to Islam, there is a certain degree of progressive revelation, but not in the Christian sense of the unfolding drama of redemption whereby purely temporary physical phenomena such as the Temple, the Levitical priesthood, the political state, etc., were superseded by the New Testament Church, the common priesthood of all believers (based on the eternal priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek) and the present Messianic Reign, or with respect to the gradual disclosure of Messianic prophecy. In the view of Islam, each book brought the same message, without any typological scaffolding such as prospective sacrifices for sin, etc., the major difference between the Books of Islam being that the previous scriptures predicted the coming of Muhammad, which the Qur’an records as fulfilled. Further, the nature of inspiration was the same, revelation being ‘sent down’ from the Eternal Tablet, and so, as we shall see in my other paper The Compilation of the Text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia dispute, Muslims naturally affirm that the process of canonical compilation was also identical.

It should also be noted that Mawdudi’s point about a prophet bringing ‘…subject matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion…’ in itself points to a difficulty Muslims experience with the Christian Scriptures. The ‘Great Commission’ in Matthew 28:18-20, where Jesus enjoins the universal proclamation of His message, contradicts Islamic dogma that all prophets prior to Muhammad were merely local messengers. As one Muslim author puts it,

…God was sending different prophets to the different nations. Jesus was one of these national prophets.

Necessarily, therefore, His Scripture was of purely local and temporary concern. This being the case, a further point in this regard which is often raised by Muslim apologists is the language of the gospels. We know that a principal reason for the New Testament being in Greek was because the Christian message was for all humanity, and Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman and Near Eastern world, comparable to the contemporary position of English today. Furthermore, Palestine itself had been heavily Hellenized since the time of Alexander the Great, as Martin Hengel has demonstrated. When Christ entered the Greek-speaking area of Tyre and Sidon, the Decapolis, or spoke to Roman officials such as the Centurion or Pontius Pilate, he evidently spoke in Greek, as it is most unlikely that the latter in particular would know either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, the usual Muslim position is that the true gospel must have been in Aramaic, since Jesus was a purely local prophet, and against all the evidence, Muslim polemicists hold that Jesus, as a Palestinian, would not have known Greek. Moreover, Muslims hold that revelation suffers in the translation, hence the reason that translations of the Qur’an are always qualified by titles such as ‘The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an’ (emphasis mine). Thus the Gospels are held to be unreliable simply because they are not in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Muhammad, however, being the Seal of the Prophets, was the universal Messenger for Mankind, S. 7:159; 21:107, and as his message was essentially the Qur’an, the same is true of his scripture – it alone was for all humanity. As the New Testament stands, the climactic and universal claims of Jesus give to Him, and thus to the New Testament itself, what Muslims hold in this respect belongs to Muhammad and the Qur’an. There is no theological and eschatological basis for future prophets and scriptures in the New Testament. Quite apart from the doctrinal problems this produces, it presents a picture of the previous Scriptures that does not tally with the Islamic idea of the characteristic of an earlier holy book. The Bible is self-sufficient and a complete, final revelation, and it is thus incompatible with the Qur’an on this basis.

2.2. Status of the Qur’an

Following from the idea that the Qur’an descends from an eternal Tablet in Paradise, we can see that a major problem is Christian-Muslim dialogue is the misunderstanding about comparison. Christians and Muslims often compare Muhammad to Christ, and the Qur’an to the Bible. Persons and Scriptures are compared with each other. On the Christian side, we make the point that the Bible reveals Christ – that it discloses him as the Word of God and the eternal Son of God, and that through faith in Him, and thus what is revealed about Him in the Bible, we receive eternal life, John 20:31. ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.‘, John 1:14, and He ‘…came from the Father, full of grace and truth.‘ However, in Islam, it is Muhammad who reveals the Qur’an, the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which became a Book and is recited among us.

Moreover, the Qur’an, in its instructions to men, is the key to the knowledge of salvation – necessarily so, for it is the revelation of God giving them the sign of how to walk the Straight Path of obedience to the divine will – Islam. It is often said of Muhammad by Muslims that ‘his life was the Qur’an.’ It can be seen that on this basis the Qur’an is not exactly equivalent to the Bible in the Christian understanding: rather, as the means of salvation, it stands in Islam where Jesus stands in Christianity. Just as Christians believe that the impartation of spiritual life by the Spirit of Christ enables us to walk in conformity with the will of God, Romans 8:9, so the internalization of the Qur’an enables the Muslim to live the life of perfect submission to God, as exemplified by Muhammad. The true contrast is between Muhammad and the Bible on the one hand, and Jesus and the Qur’an on the other. It is noteworthy that Islam calls Jesus Kalimat’Allah (‘a Word from God’) and Ruh’Allah (‘the Spirit of God’). The concept is clearly linked to the idea of revelation, and of prophets as instruments of this What is interesting in this regard is that the title ‘the Spirit of God’ is also applied to the Qur’an in the Hadith. This being the case, Christians can understand from their own concept of the Holy Spirit what is the nature of the Qur’an for Muslims.

The Qur’an, in its instructions to men, is the key to the knowledge of salvation – necessarily so, for it is the revelation of God giving them the sign of how to walk the Straight Path of obedience to the divine will – Islam:

Surah: 2. Baqara Ayah: 135

135. They say: ‘Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation).’ Say thou: ‘Nay! (I would rather) the religion of Abraham the true and he joined not gods with Allah.’

136. Say ye: ‘We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam).’

AL-MUWATTA of Imam Malik

Malik ibn Anas

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘I have left two matters with you. As long as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet.’

This is often difficult for Evangelical Protestants to understand, given their belief in Original Sin, Free Grace and spiritual regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit on the basis of Christ’s salvific work on the Cross. Since Islam does not regard Man as innately corrupt, but rather as morally neutral, spiritual regeneration is unnecessary. Further, in Islam, sin is not a matter of lack of conformity to the nature of God, but concrete acts which contravene the divine will, as revealed in Islamic law (Shari’ah), based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah. On the same basis, the salvific effects of Christ at Calvary are likewise redundant, because Man, in obedience to the Islamic law, can indeed ‘save’ himself with the help of God in the Qur’an and Sunnah. It follows therefore that what is needed is purely the revelation of God instructing Man on how to walk as the Creator would have him behave. Hence the emphasis on the Qur’an as being the Guide to salvation. There is no sense of Substitutionary Reconciliation or Federal Headship in Islam, because there is no concept of one being saving another. Nor is there the same inter-action between God and Man on the earthly scene. Rather, the transcendent deity sends down the Divine Guidance to salvation through angelic and human intermediaries, and the rest is up to Man himself. We may infer from this that the ultimate answer to Muslim attacks on the Bible is not textual, but Christological.

This being the case, it can be understood why a Muslim, looking at the Christian Scriptures in the light of the nature of the Qur’an, cannot fathom their character, especially given the absence of ‘legalism’ in the New Testament. The Qur’an points to itself as the ultimate revelation of God and means of relation to Him, whereas the Bible points to something – or rather someone – external to itself in this respect. Given, the nature of the holy book of Islam, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to revere the Qur’an. We can see why Salman Rushdie ‘s book, The Satanic Verses, caused so much offence – he committed the equivalent of blaspheming Christ. Islamic jurisprudence states that the Qur’an must not be treated with disrespect, so one must not write in it, or place in on the floor, etc.

A further point worthy of note in this regard is that the nature and status of the Qur’an flow from the belief that it is the miracle of Islam and Muhammad. Muhammad is said to have received revelations during a trance, and that extraordinary phenomena were associated with this, such as strange sounds, being gripped by an angel, perspiring in winter, etc. This indicates that both the act of inspiration and the contents thereof were miraculous. Muhammad himself specifically denied that he performed any miracle, other than conveying the Qur’anic revelation. Many Muslims believe it is impossible to read the Qur’an – at least in Arabic – without being converted to Islam. The claims to its being miraculous mainly relate to its language and style (hence the importance of its being read in Arabic). This in itself makes it difficult for a Muslim to accept the Bible as true Scripture, since its style in so many places is different from his holy book. Unlike the Bible for the most part, the Qur’an is written in a kind of rhythmic prose. This purportedly makes it easier to memorise. von Denffer uses the example of Surah 112 Al-Ikhlas:

Qul huwa llahu ahad

Allahu samad

Lam yalid wa lam yulad

wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad

Thus, an encounter with the Qur’an is similar to the experience of Paul on the Damascus Road when the Christophany (manifestation of the Risen Christ) revealed the Son of God in his life, transforming him therein. The Qur’an is its own self-authenticating miracle, the evidence that Islam is the revelation of God. We may compare the way the Resurrection of Jesus is presented as the authenticating miracle of God which demonstrates the truth of His claims to Divine Sonship, Romans 1:4. Again, Muslims do not see the Bible as making quite the same claims about itself (although Paul makes the claim for the gospel that it is the power of salvation, Romans 1:16).

3. The Nature of the Books of Moses, David and Jesus

3.1 The Character of Inspiration and Authorship

In many ways the subject matter of this section belongs under the previous heading, since the character and mode of the inspiration of the Qur’an is crucial to understanding why the Books of Moses, David and Jesus mentioned in the Qur’an do not conform to the Muslim model of Scripture. However, in order to give a more immediate comparison with the Christian Scriptures, it is pertinent to address the issue here.

Whilst there are examples of Divine dictation in the Christian Scriptures, notably the command to inscripturate the Decalogue, Exodus 34:27-28, such is not the norm with respect to the entire Bible. The Christian concept of Scriptural inspiration is theanthropic – a coterminous work of God and Man, the latter being protected from error by the influence of the Holy Spirit, a concept usually called supervision, referring to the condescension of God in revealing His mind and will through human instrumentation and personality. To give an analogy from music, a ballad played on an Irish harp gives the sound of the strings, but the melody it expresses is that of the composer. Likewise, the same is true of a dirge by the same composer performed on Scottish bag-pipes by another player. The tune, theme and performer may be different in each case, and the personality of the individual musician will be obvious in the performance, but the composer is the same in both cases, and with respect to the Scriptures, we can be sure that God has chosen adequate performers!

The Scriptures are ‘God-breathed’ (qeopneustos – theopneustos) 2 Timothy 3:16, but are simultaneously the genuine work of human beings, as indicated by the reference in 2 Peter 3:15-16 ‘…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him…His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.’ Hence, Both God and Paul were the Authors of Paul’s epistles, the former supernaturally inspiring the latter. 2 Peter 1:21 expresses it perfectly – ‘For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.’

This view is difficult for Muslims to understand. The Christian idea of supervision is analogous to the concept of hadith in Islam – the words of the Prophet, often with commentary by the narrator, true, divinely protected from error, and expressing the mind and will of the Almighty, but not usually direct revelation from the mouth of God. Hence, to a Muslim, the Gospel of Matthew at best seems a mish-mash of hadith and direct revelation – the words of God the Father, Jesus and the Historian writing the book. The Christian apologetic writer William Campbell addresses this issue by presenting how, for example, Luke 8:19-21 would look if presented in Islamic fashion:

According to James, the half-brother of Jesus (may God be pleased with him) the occasion for the revelation of Luke 8:21 was as follows,

Now my mother and brothers and myself came to see Jesus, but we were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.’

And then the verse was revealed, ‘My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.’

This Hadith was transmitted by Luke and Mark in their books, which (along with those of Matthew and John) are the most valuable among the collections of Hadiths.)

Only the portion in bold would be regarded as Injil, and this would be recorded as a separate book from the hadith material.

Ahmad Deedat, viewed by many Muslims as their most effective anti-Christian apologist, presents the idea of ‘three grades of evidence’ – the Word of God, the Words of a Prophet of God, and the Words of a Historian. He goes on to claim

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind.

{It should be noted that Deedat ignores elements in the Qur’an where others than God are held to be speaking in the first person – the classic case being Zechariah and Mary in Surah 19 Maryam, as well as other texts where Iblis, the jinn who became Satan, the Quraish, the prophet Jesus, whom Islam denies to be divine, and others, all speak. Moreover, as explained in my other paper The Compilation of the text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia dispute, Muslims themselves hold that the Qur’an is incomplete without the Sunnah, revealed in the Hadith literature, which comments upon and explains the Qur’anic text. To deny the central import of the Sunnah is heresy, as can be seen from the words of a Muslim scholar on the subject:

…whoever believes in the Qur’an… must rely on… these reports of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet… a very large number of these Traditions form a valuable explanatory supplement to the Qur’an.

The nature of the Hadith is parallel to those very aspects of the gospels (and even epistles) which Deedat derogates – inspired historical comment and explanation. Whilst Evangelical Christians state that their source of authority is the Bible alone, Muslims always refer to their sources of authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, the complete authority for Islam is analogous to the Bible itself! Deedat is hung on his own petard.}

With regard to the Islamic view of the inspiration of the Qur’an, however, the nature and mode of inspiration was dictation, through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel. Essentially, the mode of revelation to Muhammad, apart from when the angel appeared to him, was usually one of trance. Again, we can see a major difference between the Christian and Islamic concepts of the mode and nature of inspiration. Apart possibly from the Apocalypse, the Christian concept is one whereby the agent of revelation is consciously involved in the formation of the scripture, although under divine guidance and protection from error. In the Islamic schema, however, the very fact that the recipient of revelation is in a trance indicates that he is merely a passive instrument of the divine will, like the pen of a writer, naturally so since a trance-like condition precludes conscious activity. The very word ‘Qur’an‘ probably derives from qara’a – to read or recite; the word iqraa – ‘speak’ is related to it. We see examples of this in the command to read or recite in the text itself, for example, the first text to be revealed, Surah: 96. Iqraa Ayah: 2. Hence the Prophet merely recited what had been dictated to him.

This is directly pertinent to our theme. In many ways the essence of Islam is the claim of Muhammad to be the ultimate prophet and apostle of God, in the line of Adam and Abraham. The collegiality of the divine messengers is a central tenet of Islamic faith. The nature of prophetic inspiration is necessarily the same with regard to all the messengers of God, as Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 163 implies (q.v. footnotes). Hence, if Muhammad was a passive instrument in the revelation of the Qur’an, it follows that the same was true of other prophets. They did not participate in the authorship of the Books associated with their names; rather, they simply recited what was dictated to them. This can be seen in Surah 57 Hadiid Ayah 27, with its reference to Jesus having the Gospel ‘bestowed’ (Arabic aty’na’hu) on him; note also the role Gabriel played in bringing revelation to Jesus:

Surah: 2. Baqara Ayah: 87

87. We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles;

We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit..

Hence, the Muslim idea is that Gabriel, the Holy Spirit, inspired Jesus the same way he revealed Scripture to Muhammad. It can be seen that a great deal of confusion is caused when Christians and Muslims tell each other that they both believe that Scripture comes by inspiration of the Holy Spirit; both the nature of inspiration and the identity of the Holy Spirit are very different in the distinct religious schemas. The references to the Book of Moses and the Psalms of David in the Qur’an likewise reflect this concept. Thus, for Muslims, the superscription in Psalm 51 ‘A psalm of David’, which claims authorship for David himself, and the text of which actually demonstrates this claim, illustrates that whatever the Biblical books may be, they are not the texts to which the Qur’an refers. For example, Ahmad Deedat states:

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the ‘Torah’ of the Jews and the Christians… Moses was notthe author of the ‘books’ attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David)… but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation… What about the Injeel?… of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus.

Mawdudi similarly states:

There exists a common misconception about the Torah (Taurat) and the Gospel (lnjil) for the people generally take the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) for the Torah, and the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament) for the Injil. The misconception creates doubts about Revelation itself and a question arises, ‘Are these books really the Word of God? And does the Holy Quran really confirm all their contents?’ As a matter of fact, the Torah, which the Quran confirms, is not the Pentateuch but is contained in it, and the Injil is not ‘the four Gospels’ but is within these books.

The Taurat consists of those commandments and injunctions which were given to Prophet Moses (Allah’s peace be upon him) during his Prophethood, which lasted for about forty years. Of these were the Ten Commandments which were inscribed on stone tablets and delivered to Moses on Mount Tur: as regards the remaining Commandments and injunctions he himself had put down in writing. Then he handed one copy of the Torah to each of the twelve tribes of Israel for guidance. One copy was entrusted to the Levites for safe custody, which along with the stone tablets, was deposited in the Ark.

That Taurat remained quite safe and sound as an entire book up to the first destruction of Jerusalem. But, by and by, the Israelites grew so indifferent to and negligent and unmindful of it that when the Temple of Solomon was under repair during the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah, the high priest came across it by chance but did not know that it was the Torah; he thought it was only a Law book and passed it on to the Royal Scribe as a curio. The latter presented it to king Josiah who tore his clothes and ordered Hilkiah and others to consult the Eternal about the terms of the book. (2 Kings, 22:8-13). Such was the condition of the Israelites when Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, and they lost for ever even the very few copies of the Torah which had long lain neglected in some forgotten niches. The Old Testament was compiled by Ezra, when the Israelites returned home to Jerusalem after their captivity in Babylon and built the Temple anew. Ezra gathered together some prominent men of his community, and with their help compiled the whole history of Israel which now comprises the first 11 books of the Bible. Of these Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy tell the life history of Prophet Moses and include those verses of the real Taurat which became available to Ezra and his assistants, who incorporated them in those books at appropriate places in the chronological order of their revelation. Thus it is obvious that the Pentateuch as a whole is not the Taurat but includes it. The real Taurat comprises those verses which are scattered all over the life story of Prophet Moses, and it is not difficult even today to locate and recognize them. Such portions where the author says, ‘God said to Moses,’ or Moses said ‘the Lord your God says,’ the Taurat begins, and where the narrative of the life story is resumed, there that part of the Taurat ends. At those places the author of the Bible has inserted certain things by way of explanation or commentary, and it is here that the ordinary reader fails to distinguish the real Taurat from the commentary. However, those who have an insight into the nature of Divine Scriptures, can distinguish, to some degree of exactness, the explanatory notes from the revealed verses.

According to the Quran, only such scattered portions in the Pentateuch are the Taurat and it confirms them alone. And this can be testified by putting together these verses and comparing them with the Quran. Here and there one might come across a minor difference in their details, but one cannot find even the slightest difference between the fundamental teachings of the two. Even today one can see clearly that both the Scriptures have come from the same source.

Likewise, the Injil is the name of those inspired discourses and sayings which Jesus (Allah’s peace be upon him) uttered as a prophet during the last couple of years of his life. We have no means now of ascertaining whether these pious utterances were recorded and compiled during the lifetime of Jesus. In the introduction to his translation of the Bible, Moffat says, ‘Jesus wrote nothing and for a time his immediate disciples felt no impulse to write any account of him. The data of the historical Jesus, therefore is based on the vivid recollections and traditions of the primitive Palestinian disciples. How soon their materials took written shape we cannot tell, but at least one written record of them was probably in existence by about A.D. 50.’ Anyhow, when, long after his recall, the stories of Jesus were compiled in the shape of four Gospels, (the period of the composition of Mark, the first to be composed was 65-75 A.D.), some of his written or inspired sayings were also inserted at appropriate places in the historical sketches. Thus it is obvious that the first four Gospels are not the Injil, the discourses and sayings of Jesus, but they contain it. . We have no means of recognizing them from the works of the authors except this; Wherever the authors say, ‘Jesus said so or taught so and so’ there the Injil begins and whence they resume the narration, there it ends. According to the Quran, only such portions are the Injil and these alone are confirmed by it. If these portions are compiled together and compared with the Quran, one will find no serious difference between the two, and, if somewhere a trivial difference appears, it can be removed very easily with unbiased thinking.

However – and this must be emphasised – this commonly-held belief among Muslims about the corruption of the Biblical text is not supported by the Qur’an itself. Nowhere does the Qur’an distinguish between the Zabur and the Biblical Psalms of David, or between the Taurat and the Pentateuch, or between the Injil and the New Testament. It never advocates that the original books of the Prophets associated with Moses, David and Jesus have ceased to exist or been textually distorted. As we shall see, the Qur’an throughout presumes that the books to which it refers remain extant and in the possession of the Jews and Christians, and continuing to be the authoritative holy scriptures of the earlier Abrahamic confessions among whom the nascent Muslim community co-existed. Whatever the nature and mode of revelation and prophetic inspiration, the Qur’an clearly holds that the books of the three prophets were actually those in contemporary use by the People of the Book.

3.2 The Content of the Prophetic Books

As we have seen, a fundamental belief of Islam is the unity of the prophets. Surah Al-i-Imran 3:67 claims that Abraham was a Muslim rather than a Jew or a Christian. As Muhammad is considered as an Abrahamic Apostle, perfecting but reiterating the kernel of the revelation given to those who came before him, it is essential to claim that all prophets were Muslims with identical messages – specifically Islam, and that this was the religion of the Patriarchs (Surah Baqara 2:135-136). Muhammad is presented as being in the Patriarchal tradition, and the prophets are seen as prototypes of the Last Prophet. Linked to this idea is the crucial concept of Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. Just as the prophets all brought the same message, it follows that the essential teaching of their scriptures is the same. If this is the case, then when Muslims discover something in the Bible which contradicts Islam, it necessarily follows in their minds that Jews and Christians have altered their Scriptures, since there is a uniformity in divine revelation, as can be seen from the Qur’anic exposition of the ministry of certain prophets. To a Muslim, whatever Muhammad preached must be, in essence, what Abraham, Moses and Jesus proclaimed. There cannot be any distinction in their messages. For example, they all preached about the Antichrist (Ad-Dajjal al-Masih).

At times we can hear echoes of Biblical themes and stories in the Qur’an, but the differences in the contents of the biographical and kerygmatic material in the latter do not match the former. A crucial difference is the concept of Prophetic impeccability in Islam – ‘isma – prophets are free from sin. Sunnis and Shia dispute over the extent of the privilege of ‘isma: the former apply it from the time the prophetic ministry begins, whilst the latter view it as effective from birth. Certainly, however, it would be impossible for a man to sin once his prophetic ministry was in operation. For this reason alone, Psalm 51, being a text of repentance and supplication for forgiveness of the sin of David with respect to Uriah the Hittite is incomprehensible to Muslims. There is no reference in the Qur’an to David’s adultery with Bathsheba or murder of Uriah. The very idea horrifies Muslims, and is used in their propaganda against the Bible.

Most obviously, the idea that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, or God Himself, clearly contradicts the Qur’an, which explicitly denies these assertions. The Qur’an also contains material about Jesus not present in the New Testament; for example, it refers to the miracles of Jesus as an infant, such as creating clay birds, Surah Al-i-Imran 3:49, and speaking whilst yet in the cradle, Surah Maryam 19: 29-30. There is no support in the canonical scriptures for these assertions. It is possible that these ideas originated with the visit to Muhammad of the Christian delegation from the Arabian state of Najran. In the sira (biography of the Prophet) of Ibn Ishaq it is stated that the group was sixty strong, and included the political leader of Najran, Abdu’l-Masih, an administrator called al-Ayham, and a renowned bishop and theologian named Abu Haritha. The Mawdudi states that verses 33-63 of Surah 3, Al-i-Imran, were revealed at Medina at the time of the visit. According to the sira, they informed the Muslims that Jesus was God; the son of God; the third person of the Trinity ‘…which is the doctrine of Christianity.’ They supported their claims by pointing to his miracles. These apparently included making ‘…clay birds and breathe into them so that they flew away; and all this was by the command of God Almighty, ‘We will make him a sign unto men.”

The delegation pointed out Jesus had no human father, and that He ‘…spoke in the cradle…’ Further, they argued that Jesus is ‘…the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded… if He were one he would have said I have done… but He is He and Jesus and Mary.’ The text goes on to say that the Qur’an (i.e. Surah Al-i-Imran) came down in answer to these assertions. The references to ‘clay birds’ derives from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas and the ‘cradle’ story is taken from the so-called Gospel of the Infancy which is itself dependent upon the Gospel of Thomas.

The Qur’an asserts that holy war – jihad – is enjoined both by itself and by the Law and the Gospel. Whilst obviously the wars of the People of God in the Old Testament are somewhat analogous to this concept, especially the conquest of Canaan, there is no corresponding New Testament idea of sacred physical violence. The idea of ‘Crusade’ commands no support from the New Testament, and is indeed forbidden. Rather, the Christian ‘Holy War’ is specifically spiritual in nature – against demonic forces, not against human beings. Probably the most serious problem is that the Qur’an states that the advent of Muhammad was prophesied in both the earlier holy books. It is frequently claimed by many Muslims that Christian and Jews know this truth but have changed their Scriptures to conceal the predictions of Muhammad. Appeal is made to texts which impeach the character of Jews and Christians on the grounds that they are perverted transgressors. Yusuf Ali makes this assertion in his commentary. Considering the centrality of the prophethood of Muhammad for Islam, specifically in his role in bringing the Qur’an, we can see how glaring an omission this is for Muslims.

Nonetheless, whatever the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, there is no evidence that the former is aware of any distinction between either the content or identity of the Christian holy books and the Qur’anic Taurat, Zabur and Injil.

3.3 The Identity of the Gospel

The crux of this matter will be addressed in the next section. One problem is that the Qur’an speaks of a single Injil, yet Muslims are often puzzled by the presence of four gospels in the New Testament, all ascribed to the evangelists rather than directly to Jesus Himself. This in itself has led some Muslims to believe in the textual corruption of the Christian Scriptures. For example, Yusuf Ali says in his textual commentary

The Injil…spoken of by the Qur-an is not the New Testament. It is not the four gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel, which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught.

However, it is likely that the term Injil was used in a technical sense for the whole New Testament, as Torah can be used for the whole Tenak. This is especially likely when we consider that the earliest definitive contacts of Muhammad with Christians were with a monk in Syria called Bohira. The Syrian Church had a translation of the gospels into Syriac, called the Diatessaron, made by Tatian the Assyrian around 172 A.D. It is most probable that the existence of a single document with which Muhammad was familiar is responsible for the Qur’an presenting the Christian Scriptures in the singular.

In passing, it should be noted that Ahmad Deedat commits a faux pas in this respect, and seems actually to contradict the Qur’an. He says ‘In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.’ Yet the Qur’an implies that the Injil had indeed been reduced to written material, and since the Muslim view of authorship would require either Him or an assisting scribe to inscripturate the revelation, it would seem that Deedat will have to revise his assertion.

4. The Integrity of the Bible in the Qur’an and Hadith

4.1 Qur’anic Testimony for the Extancy and Integrity of the Bible

All Qur’anic references to the books of Moses, David and Jesus seem to assume that the original revelation was still with the ahl-i-kitab. It is inconceivable that the People of the Book could read the Scripture with the right reading unless they possessed the uncorrupted text. It is clear that the ahl-i-kitab still possessed the original revelations from God – and these must have been the texts which we call the Bible. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says of Surah 2 Baqara Ayah 87/89:

The Jews, who pretended to be so superior to the people without Faith – the Gentiles – should have been the first to recognize the new Truth – or the Truth renewed – which it was Muhammad’s mission to bring because it was so similar in form and language to what they had already received. But they had more arrogance than faith. It is this want of faith that brings on the curse, i.e., deprives us (if we adopt such an attitude) of the blessings of God.

A similar verse makes the same point. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says of this ayah

I think that by ‘the Book of God’ here is meant, not the Quran, but the Book which the People of the Book had been given, viz., the previous Revelations. The argument is that Muhammad’s Message was similar to Revelations which they had already received, and if they had looked into their own Books honestly and sincerely, they would have found proofs in them to show that the new Message was true and from God. But they ignored their own Books or twisted or distorted them according to their own fancies…

For the ahl-i-kitab to look ‘into their own Books honestly and sincerely’ and thereby discover the ‘proofs’ therein they must have still possessed the original true Books of God. The text nowhere indicates that they changed or distorted the truth of God, simply that they ignored such.

Surah 3:113 refers to the ahl-i-kitab who were continuing to recite ‘the revelations of Allah’. Surely, the ‘revelations of Allah’ which they recited were the Jewish holy books, i.e. the Bible (or at least the Old Testament – the reference is to the Jews of Medina) – indicating the extancy of the Scriptures of Moses and David. They scarcely recited the Qur’an, else they would not be called ahl-i-kitab, since they would have become Muslims. Later, v119 states that Muslims believe in the ‘whole Book’, which Mawdudi renders as ‘…all the revealed Books.‘, indicating, as he himself states, that the reference is to the Torah. The concept looks back to the idea of the Qur’an as the completion of the revelatory process which bestowed the earlier Scriptures. This view of continuing extancy is confirmed by texts indicating that both the Taurat and the Injil were still in contemporary existence at the time of Muhammad, and still being used by the People of the Book, the most telling being Surah 5 Maida Ayah 43ff. The text of v43 implies that the Torah is sufficient for judgment, not needing the Qur’an, and that it was extant ‘…they have the Torah…’ Moreover, v44 indicates that it was the same text by which the Prophets, and other officials of the Israelite religion judged the people. In saying this, it is naturally affirming that the contemporary holy book was the same revelation used in Biblical times. Further, it is identified as ‘Allah’s Scripture‘. With respect to v47, it is surely obvious that in order for Christians to ‘judge’ in this way, the true Gospel must still have been in common possession, and thus the Injil must be that to which Christians refer as the New Testament. Note that the text says ‘the Gospel wherein isguidance and a light’ – indicating the continued presence of the true Gospel. Similarly, Surah 5:69 bemoans the failure of the People of the Book to adhere to the Bible. In order for the ahl-i-kitab to ‘stand fast’ by the Torah and Gospel, such must have been extant in its original form. It is significant that Mawdudi identifies the Torah references as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. The text attacks them for failing in their conduct to follow their revelations, not for distorting the text thereof. Indeed, v71 goes on to warn the Jews and Christians that they have no ground upon which to stand, unless they follow the guidance in the Torah and Gospel. Given the fact that modern Muslim polemics engage in attacking practically every distinctive tenet in the Bible, and arguing that the texts are corrupted, one would have expected the Qur’an to say that the ahl-i-kitab will have no secure ground until they ignore the guidance in ‘their distorted‘ Torah and Gospel! The imperative in the Qur’anic text is incomprehensible if the Scriptures had indeed been falsified.

A very telling text in support of Biblical integrity is Surah 16 Nahl Ayah 43. The text calls upon pagans to question the possessors of earlier divine revelations about the prophets. Yusuf Ali’s Commentary on 16. 43 says;

If the Pagan Arabs, who were ignorant of religious and other history, wondered how a man from among themselves could receive inspiration and bring a Message from Allah, let them ask the Jews, who had also received Allah’s Message earlier through Moses, whether Moses was a man, or an angel, or a god. They would learn that Moses was a man like themselves, but inspired by Allah…

Mawdudi agrees with this interpretation:

‘… people who possess Admonition’ are the scholars of the people of the Books and others, who…had sufficient knowledge of the teachings of the revealed Books and were acquainted with the stories of the former Prophets.’

The point is, if the Torah had been corrupted by this time, it would surely be unhelpful to ask the People of the Book for help in this respect. What is even more startling and even more problematic for those Muslims purveying the idea of Biblical corruption is Surah 10 Yunus Ayah 95, where Muhammad himself is enjoined to question the ahl-i-kitab if he has any doubts. There would be no point in such an action unless the Scriptures they held were genuine and in common possession Similarly, the confession of faith in the Books of God in Surah 29 Ankaboot Ayah 46 is incomprehensible if the Biblical text had been distorted.

In several places the Qur’an accuses at least some of the ahl-i-kitab of concealing the truth of Scriptures, e.g. 2:101, 140, 146, 159, 174; 3:70, 71; 3:187; 6:91, 92. However, the emphasis in these texts seems to be on the Israelites suppressing in their own lives the authority of the Scripture by their misconduct. The Christians are probably not the subject in these verses. The text of Surah 6:91-92 is significant in this respect:

Surah: 6. An-aam Ayah: 91

91. Those are they whom Allah guideth, so follow their guidance. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee for it. Lo! it is naught but a Reminder to (His) creatures.

92. And they measure not the power of Allah its true measure when they say: Allah hath naught revealed unto a human being. Say (unto the Jews who speak thus): Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for mankind, which ye have put on parchments which ye show, but ye hide much (thereof), and by which ye were taught that which ye knew not yourselves nor (did) your fathers (know it)? Say: Allah. Then leave them to their play of cavilling.

Apparently, the Jews still possessed the Torah on parchments – as was their common practice in Biblical times.

4.1.1 Changed Words?

What references there are to changing words, as in 2:59; 2:211; 7:162; all seem to indicate that the Children of Israel did not abide by what was revealed, but rather followed their own desires, and in each case it is said that God punished them for so-doing. Surah 2 Baqara Ayah 58 is an example of this. Yusuf Ali’s commentary says:

This probably refers to Shittim. It was the ‘town of acacias,’ just east of the Jordan, where the Israelites were guilty of debauchery and the worship of and sacrifice to false gods (Num. xxv. 1-2, also 8-9); a terrible punishment ensued, including the plague of which 24,000 died. The word which the transgressors changed may have been a pass-word. In the Arabic text it is ‘Hittatun’ which implies humility and a prayer of forgiveness, a fitting emblem to distinguish them from their enemies…

The only ‘Ayah’ (verse) that may support the idea of distortion is Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 44. It should be noted that nowhere in this verse is there a claim of falsification of scripture; rather, as Yusuf Ali’s commentary explains, the reference is to Jews who opposed Muhammad by mispronouncing words:

A trick of the Jews was to twist words and expressions, so as to ridicule the most solemn teachings of Faith. Where they should have said, ‘We hear and we obey,’ they said aloud, ‘We hear,’ and whispered. ‘We disobey.’ Where they should have said respectfully. ‘We hear,’ they added in a whisper, ‘May you not hear,’ by way of ridicule. Where they claimed the attention of the Prophet, they used an ambiguous word apparently harmless, but in their intention disrespectful…. ‘Raina’ if used respectfully in the Arabic way, would have meant ‘Please attend to us.’ With a twist of their tongue they suggested an insulting meaning, such as ‘O thou that takest us to pasture!’ or in Hebrew. ‘Our bad one!

Yusuf Ali’s Commentary on 2:75ff says

The Jews wanted to keep back knowledge, but what knowledge had they? Many of them, even if they could read, were no better than illiterates, for they knew not their own true Scriptures, but read into them what they wanted, or at best their own conjectures. They planned off their own writings for the Message of God. Perhaps it brought them profit for the time being; but it was a miserable profit if they ‘gained the whole world and lost their own souls’ (Matt. xvi. 26). ‘Writing with their own hands’ means inventing books themselves, which had no divine authority.’

It is noteworthy that Yusuf Ali does not contend that the Jews changed the Torah. Rather, the Qur’an seems to imply that the Jews added to Scripture, and misinterpreted such. Moreover, there is not necessarily reference to all Jews everywhere here (it refers to some Medinan Jews) and certainly none to Christians.

4.2 The Testimony of the Sunnah Concerning the Bible

The testimony of the Sunnah is important for our understanding of the Qur’an, since the Sunnah of Muhammad is viewed by Islamic theologians as the sacred and ideal model. This concept derives directly from the Qur’an. Further, Muhammad’s speech was no ordinary converse; rather, it was divinely inspired. Muhammad was given the responsibility of explaining the Qur’an. The Sunnah of Muhammad was therefore the enacted exposition of the Qur’an, the essential hermeneutic of Islam’s Holy Book. Hence, the attitude and practice of Muhammad to the Scriptures used by the Jews and Christians of his time present an authoritative declaration of the trustworthiness or otherwise of these revelations.

4.2.1 Recitation of the Torah

There are several cases where Muhammad refers to the contemporary recitation of the Torah. There is nothing in these texts to suggest that Jews and Christians have corrupted the Bible. In one case the allegation is simply that they do not practice what is enjoined therein. For this hadith to have any meaning, the ahl-i-kitab must have still possessed the uncorrupted Bible. In another, Muhammad simply refers to the fact that the Jews sought to dazzle the Arabs with their knowledge of the Book in its original language and the latter were unable to refute their interpretations because of it. He does not say that the Book held by the Jews was false – indeed, he calls it the Torah.

4.2.2 The Presence of the Torah

There are a number of ahadith which refer to Muhammad calling for the Torah and having it read to him. Muhammad recognized the scrolls that were presented before him as Tawrat. These ahadith are incomprehensible unless the Torah was still extant and uncorrupted. Muhammad even instructed the Jews to act upon a moral imperative in the Torah (stoning for adultery). The same is true in a similar case. The respect and reverence Muhammad showed for the Torah in this situation precludes any idea of it being a distorted book. Indeed, he stated his faith in the book presented to him. In other cases it is clear that the Muslims had the Torah in their possession. This being so, unless the Muslims later lost the true Torah, it must have been the same book used by the Jews and Christians. Further, if the Torah had been corrupted, it is strange that they did not use this opportunity to expose the Jews for distorting the text. We have seen that the Qur’an holds that Muhammad was predicted in the Torah. A tradition elaborates on this belief. Whether Muhammad is indeed described is not the issue. The fact is that the genuine Torah was still available.

4.2.3 The Presence of the Injil

The earliest reference to the Gospel in the prophetic career of Muhammad is the story of his wife’s uncle, Waraqa, a Christian who translated the Gospel. Khadijah brought her husband to her uncle in order to assure him that his visions were not delusions or the onset of insanity. The different presentations of this story show that the true Injil was in the possession of Christians at this period. Likewise, the story of Salman, who is introduced as a believer in the two books, the Injil and the Qur’an, is clear testimony to the fact that the true Gospel was still extant at the time of Muhammad. Islamic eschatology upholds belief in the Second Coming of Christ, and a tradition states that at His return, Jesus will judge by the Qur’an, rather than the Injil. The emphasis here is on the fact that the Qur’an supersedes the Gospel, not upon its genuineness. The only text implying corruption is the following:

Abdullah ibn Abbas SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah narrated that Abdullah ibn Abbas said, ‘O group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet (peace be upon him) contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted them and written something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah,’ so as to have a minor gain for it.

Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book al-Qur’an) which has been revealed to you.’

In Islamic hermeneutics, as in Christian exegetical interpretation, the rule is that one interprets the lesser in terms of the greater, and there are far more ahadith testifying to the veracity and existence of the Torah and Injil than this one which may question such. Possibly, the reference is to Surah 4:44, where individual Medinan Jews are berated for corrupting isolated texts in their speech. However, the usual meaning of corruption is perhaps best explained by the following text:

Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As MISHKAT AL-MASABIH

Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) heard some people disputing about the Qur’an. Thereupon he said: It was because of this that those gone before you had perished. They set parts of the books against the others (whereas the fact is) that the Book of Allah has been revealed with one part confirming the others.

Therefore, do not falsify some parts with the others and speak only that which you know; that which you do not know, refer it to one who knows it well.

Transmitted by Ahmad and Ibn Majah.

Clearly, ‘falsification’ refers to misinterpretation of Scripture, especially if deliberate distortion, rather than the corruption of the actual text itself. Bukhari, in ar-Rad, says:

‘They corrupt the word’ means ‘they alter or change its meaning’. yet no-one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.

This confirms the fact that the accusations against Christians in the Qur’an and Hadith are simply that they misunderstood or misrepresented the doctrines of the Scriptures, not that they changed the actual text.

4.3 The Testimony of the Shari’ah Concerning the Bible

The testimony of the Shari’ah appears to accept the veracity of the Jewish and Christian holy books, since the official ruling states that they are the books of God. Likewise, with regard to miraculous healing, it is inconceivable that Jews and Christians would use the Qur’an, so the ‘revelation from Allah’ must refer to the Torah and Gospel, which therefore must be extant. It is noteworthy that the official jurisprudence on the issue nowhere alleges the distortion of the Jewish-Christian Scriptures. If the Christians were consciously swearing on a corrupted Scripture, it is doubtful that a Muslim court could take seriously the evidence offered.

4.4 The Testimony of Muslim Scholars

Muhammad ‘Abduh (Egypt) – the charge of corruption

… makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria or Europe, would have been obvious.

Mawlawi Muhammad Sa’id (Pakistan) –

Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But… not even one among all the verses of the Qur’an mentions that the Injil or Tawrat is corrupted… it is written that the Jews -… not the Christians… alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted…

Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi –

The ordinary Muslim people…believe through hearsay…that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community…whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands…? To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God…

5. Conclusion

It can be seen from our study of the sources of Islamic authority – the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Shari’ah that the view of the Bible promulgated by some Muslim polemicists is merely an inferential prejudice, nowhere upheld in the holy texts of Islam. The Qur’an and Sunnah uphold the veracity of the Christian Scriptures, and it is obvious that what references there are to the books known as Tawrat, Zabur and Injil clearly refer to the canonical Old and New Testaments. In fact, if a Muslim fails to believe in the previous revelations, he effectively apostatises. Yet it is the very fact that Muslim sacred writings doregard the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as true which causes the problem, since any Muslim can tell that they do not agree with the Qur’an in doctrine or in form. Hence the inference that the Jews and Christians have conspired to change their sacred texts.

On our part, Christians have sometimes failed to properly comprehend the nature and role of the Qur’an in Islam, and so have responded inadequately to Muslim criticisms of the Bible. Because they do not understand the Muslim point of reference, they do not know from where the Muslims are coming in their criticisms of the Bible, and naturally any answer to Islamic polemics suffers as a result. It is essential for Christian scholars to acquaint themselves with a proper appreciation of the Muslim concept of Scripture in order to express more adequately the truth of Biblical revelation. The irony is that Muslim sacred texts actually uphold the veracity of the Christian Scriptures. This in itself is a useful point to make to our Muslim friends, especially those involved in apologetics. One of the greatest evidences to present to Muslims that the Bible has not been corrupted is the assumption of the Qur’an that the ‘previous scriptures’ are both extant and reliable. After all, if the Gospel had indeed been changed at the Council of Nicaea, it is remarkable that nearly three hundred years after the event, the Qur’an never alludes to it, nor charges the Christians with corruption of text.

6. Bibliography

A. Guillaume, Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975

Ajijola, Alhaj A. D., The Myth of the Cross, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 3rd edition 1978

Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, 1984

Campbell, William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science, Arab World Ministries, USA, 1986

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, 1987 UK reprint, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham

von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1983

Dimashkiah, Abdul Rahman, Let the Bible Speak, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, 1995

Ghiyathuddin Adelphi, and Hahn, Ernest, The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and the Hadith, Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1977

Gibb and Kramers, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1974

Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism, SCM, London, 1974.

Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition.

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Nusrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, New Delhi-110 002, India, 5th Reprint 1993 (first published in Hyderabad, 1930).

The Holy Bible, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, USA, Eleventh Printing July 1980.

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, The Sources of Islam, T. & T Clark, Edinburgh

The Virgin Birth of Jesus: Its Significance

99 Truth Papers
Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith

April 1997

---

Introduction

There are certain theological concepts or words which we share in common with the Muslims, though the meanings which we attach to them differ substantially, and even contradict completely with that which they attach to them? Five of these concepts or words which I feel are of importance are 1) the meaning of the title Messiah, 2) the fact of the Virgin Birth, 3) the concept of the Kingdom of God, 4) the Name for Jesus, and 5) the significance of the Sacrificial Lamb. What I find interesting is that while Christians place great importance on all of these five ideas, the Muslims though they recognize their existance in scripture, have no real concept of their importance, and at times do not even understand what they mean, or the significance they hold for the sources from which they were borrowed.

It is important, therefore, that we take these five ideas, or words, and explain their meanings from the Christian perspective, so that we can not only better speak to the issues they raise for our Muslim friends, but finally offer them the real significance which God had intended.

In another paper I introduced a discussion concerning the word Messiah. In that talk I was concerned that our Muslim friends be acquainted with the Messiah as He really is, and not as a person who, according to Muslims, is merely a prophet. I wanted them to see that our scriptures clearly defined Him as a person who was uniquely anointed by God, though He was equal with God. I wanted them to understand His mission was two-fold, to come initially as a suffering servant in order to take upon Himself the sins of the world, and then. as a consequence, to initiate the true Kingdom of God, which is here and now.

Until they understood the Messiah fully, they would continue using the title for Jesus as the “al-Masih,” yet fail to comprehend that as the Messiah, Jesus fulfilled all that God required of His creation, which negated any need for another prophet, or a further revelation, for that matter.

In this study I would like to continue with that same theme, and delve into the fact of the Virgin Birth, a fact which both Christianity and Islam agree upon, but which Islam has little understanding of, both historically and theologically. It is obvious that their idea for the virgin birth has been borrowed from Christianity, but without the meaning which the Bible has attached to it. It is for that reason that I would like at this time to help our Muslim friends understand the real significance of the virgin birth.

That Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit of God is an important belief for both Muslims and Christians. However, we are faced with the urgent question, “Why?” Why was Jesus born of a virgin? What does this tell us about Him? What kind of a person can be born only of a virgin? And why is this important to us today?

In the Qur’an, Mary asks the angel how she could be pregnant as, “no man hath touched [her]” (Sura 3:47). The angel answered that it was so decreed (Sura 19:20). Yet why should this child come in this manner? Most Muslims would shrug in ignorance, as the Qur’an never explains it.

At times like these, the Qur’an points the Muslim to those to whom the former revelations were given, the Christians. We read, “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord” (Sura 10:94; cf. 21:7).

Let us, therefore, go to these scriptures and ask them to explain this unique birth. Perhaps then we can see the real significance of Christmas as God intended.

[I] The Virgin Birth Delineates the Uniqueness of Jesus

The former scriptures say a number of things concerning Jesus. To begin with they say that He was:

Unique in His conception:

In the annals of history, no other human being has had such a marvelous conception. Not even Muhammad. All the rest of the human race stands together. Since the time of Adam and Eve we have all had two parents.

But, this one human, Jesus of Nazareth, stands alone as a kind of new, second Adam. He, alone, was born of a virgin. And this birth was unique in other respects as well.

We read in the Bible that the angel Gabriel foretold His conception (see Luke 1:24-37), and that a new and strange star appeared, indicating where He would be born. At the time of His birth angels proclaimed the event (see Luke 2:8-14), and before He could talk wise men from the East came to worship Him (see Matthew 2:11). John the Baptist, also miraculously born (though not virgin-born), while still a baby in the womb, leapt for joy as soon as Mary, with the newly conceived Jesus, arrived.

Unique in His sinlessness:

His life, consequently, echoed the way He came into the world. In Luke chapter 4 we read that the devil came to tempt Jesus as he had tempted the first Adam, but was unable to corrupt Him. Jesus stayed absolutely obedient to His Word. Unlike the rest of humanity He never sinned.

Unique in His power:

His uniqueness was displayed in many ways. In Luke 3:22, 4:1,14 etc… we are told that the Spirit of God, the power of the highest, rested upon Him. As a result Jesus went about doing endless miracles; healing the sick, controlling nature itself, and raising the dead. He knew what people were thinking, where they had been, what they had done without ever asking them. He could even tell the future. All of this shows us that here was a man who knew far more of the power of God than any other human who has ever lived.

Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Jesus lived in an endless display of the power of the Spirit of God. There was no limit to what He could do in the service of God. Nobody found Him unable to meet their need.

Unique in His message:

His uniqueness was witnessed in other areas as well. Jesus was not just an ordinary man chosen by God to bear a very important message. His message received its authority from Himself. He did not get His authority from His message. In other words, with Jesus, His teaching is less important than the man Himself. He told people to follow Him, and not just to follow His teaching. Even when He taught, the people were not so amazed at what He said as the power and authority He had in His teaching (see Luke 4:32).

The virgin birth of Jesus, therefore, helps us to focus our attention on the man Himself. It is proof that here is someone totally new, totally different, indeed, totally unique. No other prophet, indeed, no other person could come close to making the claims He made, or do the things He did. For this reason His birth was important in announcing the uniqueness of who He was.

[II] The Virgin Birth Points to the Purity of Jesus

But that was not all. The virgin birth also signified that Jesus was not of the line of Adam. Because He did not have two parents, He was exempted from Adam’s line. Now, you may ask why this is so important? Why should Jesus not be born in the line of Adam just like every other human being? Why must He not be a descendant of Adam? Why is this fact significant?

To answer this we need to take a long step back, in fact to the very beginning of creation. In the Taurat (Genesis 1) we learn that God created all living creatures with the ability to reproduce themselves. To produce offspring “after their own kind.” From the beginning of creation we see that God established a very important principle, that “like produces like.”

We see this illustrated on a small scale every day in the way that a child inherits various physical and personal characteristics from its parents, its skin colour, its racial features, even specific likenesses, such as long noses, or body height and weight, or personality traits.

[A] That which comes from Adam is sinful:

On a larger scale, however, we can see that we all possess the basic humanity that Adam and Eve have passed down to us through the myriad of generations since the time of creation. Yet, when we think of humanity, we tend to assume that this likeness pertains to physical attributes alone. But there is more to it than that. Adam passed down to us more than those characteristics which separate us from other animals or living things, such as the apes or reptiles. And here is where the problem lies.

When we read the book of Genesis, we discover that immediately following the story of creation, and the beginning of the human species as we know it, comes the story of the beginning of sin.

The Taurat tells us this story of sin in the events leading to the Fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. In disobeying God, by eating the fruit that Eve gave to him, Adam brought a judgment and curse upon not only all of his descendants, but upon the universe itself.

In Genesis 2:17, we learn that the very earth was cursed because of Adam’s disobedience. As a result of his disobedience, Adam would die and rot away and go back into the dust from which he was formed. He would, therefore, not enjoy perfect life, or health and happiness in the garden of Eden. Nor would he be in relationship with the Lord, as had been intended.

Before they rebelled against God, Adam and Eve were innocent, unashamed by their nakedness, and totally happy with God. After their sin they had changed substantially. Now, suddenly, they were ashamed of their nakedness. They tried to hide away from God. They now understood what evil was, and how it differed from what was good.

So, although Adam had been created very good, free from all moral pollution or physical danger, yet, he, by disobeying God, had brought about death, shame and corruption into his own heart, together with his wife, Eve. Sin had now entered the world, and had permeated Adam and his wife Eve.

In Genesis 5:3 we are told that Adam produced offspring “in his own likeness, after his own image.” Again, we find the old dictum that, “like produces like.”

Adam had defiled his own humanity. He had brought a curse upon himself from God. He had become guilty and sinful. Adam’s children were, likewise, the same. They too were corrupt and cursed. “Like produces like.” Take for instance the very first son of Adam, who was Cain. What did he become? A murderer. And from then on we are not surprised to read that the history of humanity is filled with murder, hate and jealousy.

Therefore, we have a chain of human life reaching back to Adam, the consequence of whose sin has affected us all. Because of that original sin by Adam we are all imputed with the guilt of sin, the wages of which is death.

Today we see those consequences all the time. We notice that children are naturally selfish and disobedient. They need to be disciplined to be good. And as we all know, the natural tendency for humans is to behave badly, putting themselves as their own highest authorities, and their thoughts are so often shameful. Even Muslims admit that Muhammad, whom they believe to be the highest example for us to follow, himself, did what was wrong and had to pray about his sins (Surah). Indeed, as Romans 3:10 says, “There in no-one righteous, not even one.” We have all been imputed with the sin of Adam, as “Like has produced like,” right on down through the annals of history, till today. But there is one exception.

[B] That which comes from God is sinless:

There is one who never did anything wrong. He went against the norm. He was sinless, the only man who ever was, and His name was Jesus, the sign promised by the prophet Isaiah. He had to be like that because of who He was and what His mission would be.

Jesus could not be a son of Adam. He could not be a descendent of the corrupt and cursed Adam. Therefore, He was conceived from a Holy source, from God himself. By His virgin birth, He was not imputed with the sin which the rest of us were imputed. He was different, because His Father was different. Remember the dictum, “Like produces like.”

Jesus shared the characteristics of His Father. By this we do not mean that He was conceived by God in a sexual way. No, from scripture we are told that the power of the highest miraculously worked to produce a conception in Mary’s Virgin womb. But that child carried the nature of God within Him, as He was “God with us-Immanuel.”

Here was a child that was described by Gabriel as a “holy one.” This child was not part of that chain of curse and corruption reaching back to Adam. Here was a new Adam, a new, fresh, human being. Here was a human that was not under the curse of God. In fact, in Luke 3:22, we read that God spoke from heaven, saying that Jesus was His Son whom He loved and that He was well pleased with Him. There was no shame or guilt or corruption in this man.

As proof of this we find that His holiness did not go unnoticed, even by those who were not of His group, those who persecuted Him, and despised Him. At the end of His life, Pilate said that He could find nothing wrong with Jesus, and so washed his hands of his execution. In Luke 4:34 even a demon identified Him as the “Holy One of God.”

We know that like produces like, so we know that Jesus shared the same nature as His father. Yet, you may ask, what about His mother? He had a human mother did He not? That is true, He did. It is because He had a human mother that we know that He also had a human nature. Due to His virgin birth Jesus had the nature of a human and the nature of God, yet He remained one person. The significance of His two natures would take pages to explain. Suffice it to say that in Jesus, God is revealed in human form as God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). His virgin birth, however, underlies these two natures: born of a woman, providing Him His humanity, yet born of a virgin, underlining His divinity.

And, some believe, it is important that it was through his mother and not his father that He came to earth. If we were to look at the story of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3, we find that it was Adam who received the warning from God not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Eve had not yet been created. Therefore, Adam had the higher authority to keep this promise. In chapter 3, when Eve took the fruit and ate it, she was not alone. Adam was with her according to verse 6. Historically, the church has taught that the blame for the sin of eating the fruit was uniquely Eves, because she was the first to eat it. Yet, Adam was right there witnessing the act and he did nothing to stop her. He therefore, is as culpable as her, and in some respects possibly more-so, as it was to him that the warning had originally been given. Eve only heard about it 2nd-hand from Adam.

For this reason, one can say that the guilt for having eaten the fruit could be greater for Adam than for Eve. It is therefore, of more importance that Jesus be descended from Eve and not Adam, to be fully exonerated from the guilt of that first sin.

[C] That which comes from Eve is fulfilled:

If we stay in the 3rd chapter of Genesis, and verse 15, we find a prophecy spoken by God concerning the descendant of Eve and Satan. God says, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” God in this verse is foretelling the event of the cross which was to happen thousands of years later. What He is saying here is that an offspring of Eve would crush the head of Satan. We know this happened on the cross and the subsequent resurrection, when Jesus finally destroyed the work of Satan by triumphing over death.

What is interesting is that God did not say the offspring of Adam, nor did God say “their offspring,” referring to the two of them. He purposefully mentions “her” offspring, pointing to the female side of the created parent, since Eve stands for all of woman-hood (as can clearly be seen in the subsequent prophecies in vs. 16 which only women can suffer). Therefore, the person to fulfill this prophecy had to be a woman. Essentially what is happening here is that God is pointing to the virgin birth, since Adam’s offspring would not be involved in this birth, absolving Him from Adam’s sin. The virgin birth has thus added importance, because it fulfills the prophecy which God gave to Eve way back at the dawn of creation.

[III] The Virgin Birth signifies the Divinity of Jesus

Yet, that is not all. The virgin birth has other significance for us today, as well. According to the book of Isaiah, we find that this unique child would be a sign to the people of Israel. In chapter 7, verse 14 we read:

Isaiah 7:14 “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”

What was the sign which the virgin birth was to announce? It was that a child named Immanuel was to be conceived. This was no ordinary name, for this was no ordinary child. Immanuel means “God with us.” Therefore the child’s name signified who the child was; this child was “God with us.” Here then is the sign. God, Himself, was to come through this virgin birth.

In The Injil, in the book of Matthew 1:18-25, we are told that this prophecy is fulfilled in the conception and birth of Jesus, the Christ (another name for Messiah). Before Mary and Joseph had any sexual relations, Mary was pregnant “through the Holy Spirit.” In verse 20 we are told that her conception was an act of the Holy Spirit, not by sexual intercourse (as some Muslims claim the scripture is saying), but by a miracle.

In Luke 1:26-2:52, we read in more detail of the conception and birth of Jesus. There are too many verses for us to read at this time, but the gist can be summed up as follows: The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her that her virgin-born child will be called the “Son of the Most High, the Lord God,” and that “He will reign over the house of Jacob (Israel) forever.” When Mary queries the possibility of this prophecy, Gabriel explains that the power of the highest, the Holy Spirit, would “overshadow” her and therefore, the “Holy One” in her would be called the “Son of God.” As in the case of the Messiah, we can be in no doubt that with this virgin birth, someone extremely important was to be born. He was the Holy One, the Son of the Most High God. In Luke 3:38 we learn that only Adam is similarly referred to as the “Son of God,” yet in his case, he was offered this title due to the fact that he was created by God and not by the process of procreation.

Note: why do Muslims, in questioning the seeming physical relationship of Jesus to God, as His son, not also question Adam’s physical relationship to God, as he is also referred to as the “Son of God?”

It is interesting to note that in Adam’s creation he was created without sin, completely blameless, and in relation with God. In this way he was a “Son of God.” There was nothing in his life at the beginning which could impair that relationship which he had with God.

This fact helps us to understand why the virgin birth of Jesus is, thus, so important. The fact that His birth was a virgin birth brought added significance, in that since Jesus was born unlike any other human, without two parents, He could clearly be identified as the sign promised by Isaiah, as God, Himself amongst us, the Holy One.

Conclusion: Its significance for us today

What then can we say is the significance of the virgin birth? What is it that Muslims need to know about the virgin birth which will help them to understand God better? From what we have just read it is evident that the virgin birth has enormous significance.

First of all this unique birth delineates the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that He was totally distinct from all the rest of humanity in His conception, in His moral character, in His power, and in His message. There was and is no-one like Him. Thus it stands to reason that only He was born of a virgin. Muslims should ask why their Qur’an never explains the reason for this unique birth of Jesus. The fact that the Qur’an mentions the virgin birth yet says nothing concerning its significance, while at the same time elevating another person to a greater level than Jesus shows that much has been left unsaid, possibly because it was a borrowed idea to begin with, yet an idea full of hidden truth.

Our Muslim friends must be informed that Jesus, though He was a human like us, was also divine, and consequently, did not partake of the curse of Adam with which we have all been imputed. For that reason, Jesus, who because of His divinity was sinless, could take upon Himself our sins completely. Consequently, we now have the assurance of our salvation, something which Muslims can never claim.

The virgin birth furthermore shows us that it was Jesus who fulfilled the prophecy given to Eve, that one of her offspring would come and destroy the power of Satan, the power of death, and the power of evil in the world; and in so doing, bring us back into relationship with God, so that we could now live with Him for. That is the great news which Muslims need to hear.

And finally, since the virgin birth was promised by the prophet Isaiah as a sign of “Immanuel,” God with us, who was yet to come; Jesus as the only person in history to have been born in such a way, truly can be called “God with Us.” The fulfillment of that prophecy informs us that this child was also the Son of God, and that He was the Holy One. Muslims need to be made aware of these prophecies and their fulfillment. They must know that since God has already come among us, there is now no need for a further prophet, or a further revelation. All has been fulfilled in this one unique person.

To understand this truth, however, Muslims will then need to delve into the reason why God came to be with us. On this point the Qur’an is deeply inadequate. Since it does not speak at all of the curse of Adam, it knows little concerning the consequences and remedy of sin. It also says nothing concerning the significance of the virgin birth. The Bible, however, has these answers (Sura 10:49). It is up to us to share it with them.

Because they have not understood the nature of sin, they have not understood the need for its rectification, which requires a divine intervention for its eradication. It is no wonder, then, that they have not understood the significance of the virgin birth, though they continue to claim its validity in history. Here then is our task, to re-introduce the uniqueness of Jesus’s birth, without which we would continue to live in sin for eternity.

Jesus in the Qur’an

Introduction

The Qur’an treats Jesus as a very important figure. It gives him a greater number of honourable titles than any other figure in the past. It calls him a ‘sign’, a ‘mercy’, a ‘witness’, an ‘example’ one who is upright, one who is eminent, and ‘one brought nigh unto God’ . It gives him the titles Messiah, Son of Mary, Messenger, Prophet, Servant, Word of God, and a Spirit from God 1. He is the only prophet to have been born of a virgin and he did the greatest miracles of all the prophets. Jesus is also referred to in ninety verses scattered in 15 surahs in the Qur’an. Yet for all of this respect, the Qur’an denies Christ his identity as the Saviour and Lord of mankind. The Qur’an presents a very well defined idea of prophethood and then applies this role of prophet to Jesus and most of the other major Old Testament figures. It is the idea of prophethood it applies mostly to Muhammad, and this idea is then read back to all major prophetic figures in the past.

Prophethood in the Qur’an

Prophets in the Qur’an fall into two divisions, Prophet (Nabi) and Messenger or Apostle (Rasul). A Prophet is anyone directly inspired by God. A Messenger is one to whom God has entrusted a special mission. Messengers are usually also prophets and often come with books of revelation. The basic message preached by Messengers and Prophets is the same: warning people to repent of sin (especially idolatry) and fulfill their duty to God. This message fits with the Islamic doctrine of salvation that all one must do is repent of sin, believe in God, and do the right good works to be saved. The prophet/messenger is there to warn them of the consequences if they lapse in fulfilling their duty to God. If they do repent the prophet/messenger promises blessings from God. It is a simple role and the Qur’an asserts in Surah 10:48 that every nation has received a prophet at one time or another. Muslims believe that all of the Old Testament prophets had this same ministry as prophets. Totally absent from the Qur’an’s view of prophethood is any reference to Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah to come, any reference to calling the Israelites back to their covenant with God centered on the sacrificial system of the Temple, and any expansion in revelation concerning God’s plans for mankind or any other covenants like the Davidic covenant or the New covenant. The Islamic idea of prophethood is strictly linear without development calling people back to the same basic religion.

Certain prophet/messengers received books from God. The idea here is that they all received their books the same way as Muhammad is supposed to have received the Qur’an–by dictation from a heavenly original. According to the Qur’an, Moses received a book called the Taurat, David a book called the Zabur, and Jesus a book called the Injil or Gospel. Muslims are taught that they must believe in all of these prophets and their books. The Qur’an, however, is taught to be the only one that is uncorrupted and trustworthy, as well as being sent to correct the corruptions in the prior books and retain whatever sound teaching was in them. The net effect is that the Muslim, while saying he believes in all of the books actually only trusts the Qur’an.

‘Isa

Jesus’ name in the Qur’an is ‘Isa. It is unresolved how he came to be referred to by this name and many theories have been put forward, three of the more important being it is either a corruption of the Syriac “Yeshu”, a corruption of “Esau” which was a derogatory name the Jews used for Jesus, or it was used to make a rhyme with Moses (Musa) in certain verses of the Qur’an. For our purposes, it is enough to say that your Muslim friend will automatically know who you are talking about when you use the name Jesus Christ. He will expect it from you since you are a Christian and it will not be offensive to him.

An interesting thing in the Qur’an is that Jesus is recorded many times speaking on his own behalf defining his own identity and his ministry. A survey of these instances will give us the best view of the Qur’anic Jesus.

Jesus’ cradle speech

The first instance of Jesus speaking for himself in the Qur’an is when he was a baby. In Surah 19, after his miraculous conception and birth, Mary comes to present the baby Jesus to her relatives. They accuse her of immorality and in her defense Jesus speaks up from the cradle and says:

He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, and hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and He hath enjoined upon me prayer and alms-giving so long as I remain alive, and (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! Surah 19:30-33, Pickthall’s translation

There are many key words and thoughts here. First, Jesus identifies himself as the slave of Allah. The technical word here is ‘abd, which means he is just a human in the ordinary human relationship with God. The use of this word is a direct denial of deity in Jesus’ nature. Second, note the statement of being given a scripture and being appointed a prophet. This is according to the Qur’anic idea of scripture and prophethood mentioned earlier. Jesus is saying here he was to receive a scripture like Moses, David, and Muhammad. The references to prayer and almsgiving are taken by Muslims to refer to two of the five main duties of Islam, ritual prayer and almsgiving. Jesus was called to be a good Muslim, in other words. The last statement, referring to his death and resurrection is taken by Muslims to not occur in that order but rather reversing the order, him being taken to heaven first and then coming again to finish out his normal lifespan. Though this is not the order the Qur’an uses it is what Muslims believe.

Jesus’ miracles

Surah 5:110 gives a convenient list of the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Qur’an:

O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead, by My permission;… Surah 5:110, Pickthall’s translation

Note the constant refrain, “by My permission”. Muslims assert from this that Jesus’ miracles were all done by God’s power and that in himself he had no power to do them; that in himself he was just a man. Two miracles are omitted from this list but found in other places in the Qur’an: causing a table spread with food to be miraculously lowered from heaven for his disciples (5:112-115), and being able to tell people what they had hidden in their houses (3:49).

His speech from the cradle and making the bird from clay are stories that are both found in apocryphal Christian books written prior to the time of Muhammad. They are two of many Qur’an stories that demonstrate borrowing from other religions.

The Trinity

There are many places in the Qur’an where any kind of a trinitarian idea of God’s nature is rejected. The main conception of the Trinity in the Qur’an seems to be one of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son. Most Muslims you will meet realize that Christians today do not mean this when they talk about the Holy Trinity. But they will be quick to assert that any notion of three-ness is wrong and use the Qur’an to defend their idea. Jesus in the Qur’an speaks very forcefully against the Trinity:

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. I spake unto them only that which Thou commandest me, (saying): Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord….Surah 5:116,117, Pickthall’s translation

The Qur’an reinforces Jesus’ words with statements like the following:

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three”– Cease! (It is) better for you!–Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son… Surah 4:171, Pickthall’s translation

The Qur’an never seriously interacts with the biblical and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity describes what God has revealed about His unity. It does not multiply gods as the Qur’an states.

Jesus predicting Muhammad

One verse in the Qur’an has turned Muslims loose looking in the Bible for any possible prediction of Muhammad.

And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One (Ahmed)…. Surah 61:6, Pickthall’s translation

Most will go to the passages in John 14-16 concerning the Paraclete to try to prove that this really refers to Muhammad, not the Holy Spirit. The important thing for us to note is that Muslims believe that a major part of Jesus’ ministry was to predict the coming of Muhammed.

The Crucifixion

The Jesus of the Qur’an did not die on the cross. Surah 4:157,158 says,

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus Son of Mary, Allah’s messenger–They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself….

The normal explanation is that God put someone else on the cross and took Jesus to heaven. Judas is probably the most suggested person for who died in Jesus’ place. No historical evidence is given. It is believed because the Qur’an states it as the truth.

Jesus’ return to the earth

The Qur’an does not explicitly state that Jesus will return again to the earth. It is a doctrine that is developed in the traditions of Islam (the Hadith). Here are the two Qur’an verses used to support the doctrine of his return:

There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them — Surah 4:159, Pickthall’s translation

And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but Follow ye Me: this is the straight way. Surah 43:61, Yusuf Ali’s translation

From these verses and with other traditions the Islamic version of the return of Jesus will look like this. After being taken to heaven to escape crucifixion, Jesus will appear at the end of time as a sign that it is the Last hour. He will descend by resting his hands on the wings of two angels. He will descend onto a white minaret set in the eastern part of Damascus. He will invite the whole world to become Muslim including Christians and Jews, He will kill the anti-Christ, He will break the cross, kill all the swine, end all wars, and will become a judge. He will marry, have children, perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, die after 40 years and be buried beside Muhammad in Medina. His time on the earth will mark a period of abundance on the earth and all religions will end except Islam.

How Muslims feel about Jesus

From the above description you can sense how Muslims do have a great degree of admiration and devotion to Jesus. Some even seek him for intercession because he is such a powerful figure in Islam. Unfortunately, the Qur’an directs their respect away from regarding Him as being the only Saviour from sin and the Lord of Lords. It even has Him denying His identity as God come in human flesh, and denying that His ministry was the climax of God’s program on the earth.

As with the Qur’an, Muslims do not tend to recognise the importance of the actual historical evidence that exists concerning Jesus. They take the Qur’an’s word for His identity and ministry without examining the basis for their belief.

Also, as Muslims are passionate about the Qur’an being a superior revelation to the Bible, so with Jesus, they believe that we Christians are committing blasphemy in what we assert about Jesus. They think it is Christians who have made Jesus out to be God. The zeal and passion Muslims show in arguing these things comes from sincere belief that we are wrong and committing blasphemies. They do not realise their error and misunderstandings. They do not realise that we are taking Jesus at His word and also taking the word of Jesus’ disciples as found in the New Testament.

Recommended Books

Geisler, Norman and Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam. Baker Books, 1993.

Masood, Stephen. Jesus and the Indian Messiah. Oldham: Word of Life, 1994.

Why Follow Jesus?. OM Publishing, 1997.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Oxford University Press, 1977.

Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. MacMillan Publishers, 1991.

1. Parrinder 1977 p. 16

The Names and Titles of Christ in Islam and the Bible

Gerry Redman

Contents

Introduction

A. The Biblical View

1. Lord Jesus Christ

2. Son of David

3. Son of God

4. Son of Man

5. Servant of the Lord

6. Prophet

7. Word of God

8. Priest

9. Saviour

B. The Islamic View

1. ‘Isa Bin Maryam

2. Prophet

3. Al-Masih

4. Servant

5. Word

6. Spirit

Conclusion

References

Introduction

Whilst both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm unique titles to Jesus, of which some are similar in meaning, there are also important differences between the nomenclatures ascribed to Him in the distinct holy books. To some extent this reflects the negative thrust of Islamic Christology, the emphasis of which is to deny (in the Islamic estimation, ‘to correct’) more than to affirm. On the other hand, the Biblical titles of Jesus point to the continuity of His ministry with the salvation-history revealed in the Old Testament – that is, His names and titles demonstrate that He is the fulfilment of prophecy, the culmination of the divine plan of redemption. As we shall see, the same is not true of Islamic Christology. This in itself points to the historical picture of Jesus in the Bible as being the genuine article. In this paper we will examine and compare the names and titles of Jesus in Islam and the Bible.

A. The Biblical View

1. Lord Jesus Christ

(a) Jesus: ‘Jesus’ is Greek and Latin for ‘Joshua’, Hebrew for ‘YHWH Saves’, appropriate as a description of the work of Christ – He is the Saviour. The name points to the human Jesus, a true Man, a Palestinian Jew of 1st century A.D. He was a Galilean, and tri-lingual because of that. He would have been as equally at home in Aramaic and Koine Greek, given the cosmopolitan nature and geographical position of Galilee, which bordered on Gentile areas. As a pious Jew, he would also know Hebrew – primarily as liturgical language, no doubt.

Thus the name indicates His true humanity and divine commission – not a demigod, but true man, man as we are, save without sin. It should be noted that the final Victory is one where Man is exalted – Philippians 2:9-10 – it is at the name of Jesus, not Christ, that every knee bows: we may also be encouraged by the fact that a man is reigning now over the Earth – Acts 2:32, 33-35, and especially v36.

(b) Lord: This is used in differing, but not contradictory ways.

(i) Honorific: i.e. ‘Sir’ – e.g. Matthew 21:30; John 4:19; 9:35. Morris writes ‘Minus the article the Greek term was an ordinary form of polite address, much like our “Sir” It is used in this fashion by the son who said “I go, Sir” (Mt. 21:30)…’. 1 In such cases, the term does not necessarily indicate faith, and often does not.

(ii) Authority: i.e. ‘Master’, indicating ownership – Luke 16:3; Colossians 4:1. Milne states ‘This title occurs in NT times in the general sense of “master” or “owner”…’ 2 Paul uses it to indicate that we are the slaves of Christ – Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1.

(iii) Deity: ‘YHWH’ – the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name. In practice born of reverence, Jews preferred the circumlocution adonai, ‘lord’ as the Divine Name was considered too sacred to utter. Adonai was rendered by kurios (kuriov) in the Septuagint.

The claim by Christadelphians that Jesus is never expressly termed ‘Lord’ in sense of ‘YHWH’ until after the Resurrection is questionable. Luke 3:4,.quoting Isaiah 40:3-5, is unintelligible unless Jesus is YHWH, and it clearly has present reference. John 20:28; Romans 1:4, etc. merely indicate that the resurrection openly establishes the Lordship of Christ in terms of deity (Acts 2:36 means ‘king’), not that he becomes divine: Matthew 16:18 states that Jesus was Messiah in His contemporary state, not future, yet Acts 2:36 seems to indicate that the Resurrection ‘made’ Him Messiah; clearly the sense is one of public declaration. If Jesus was Messiah before resurrection, He was also YHWH before that event. Several texts in the Epistles and Revelation explicitly identify Jesus with YHWH:

Romans 10:13 looks back to v9 and v12, where Jesus is expressly termed kuriov; v13 quotes from Joel 2:32 –’whoever shall call on the name of the Lord (i.e. YHWH) shall be saved’. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18 in respect to the Ascension of Christ Whilst the Hebrew text does not mention YHWH, v18 of Psalm 68 speaks of yah ‘elohim; Paul applies this to Christ. Philippians 2:9-11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, which looks back to v21, where the subject is YHWH. Not only is Jesus termed kuriovby Paul, but the wording – that every knee shall bow to Jesus – reflects the wording of Isaiah 45:23, where it is to YHWH that every knee bows. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25 (LXX) in its discourse on the Son, identifying Him as kuriov, yet in the Psalm YHWH is the subject. We may also note that the eschatological Last Day in the Old Testament – Day of YHWH – has become the Day of the Lord Jesus (Christ) in the New Testament – 1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16; 2 Peter 3:10, 12. The renowned New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie observed about the New Testament usage of the title ‘In view of the frequent use of the title in OT citations, it is probable that the LXX usage of kyrios should be regarded as a key to an understanding the term when applied to Jesus (i.e. as an appelative for God). In NT usage the implication is that the same functions assigned to God are assigned to Christ.’ 3

(iv) Messianic King

Mark 12:35-37, quoting Psalm 110:1 identifies Jesus as the Messianic King, and this would also seem to be the import of Acts 2:36, given the parallelism of ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’.

(c) Christ (Messiah)

Christos, Greek for Maschiach – ‘Anointed One’ Priests, Kings and Prophets were anointed with oil, symbolising the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 61:1, Zechariah 4:1-6 – i.e. the impartation of grace for office and visible appointment to such, together with establishment of particular relationship with God – 1 Samuel 16:13; 24:6; 26:9; 2 Samuel 1:14.

Prophets – 1 Kings 19:16, cf Psalm 105:15; Isaiah 61:1. High Priests – Leviticus 4:3, 5; 16:6.15; cf Exodus 28:41. The King was called the ‘Anointed of YHWH’ – 1 Samuel 24:10. 2 Samuel 7:12ff connects the promise of eternal Davidic dynasty with the coming of Mashiach, clarified in Ezekiel 37:21ff and Zechariah 9:9ff. Christ was anointed by God the Holy Spirit at His Baptism, Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; cf. Isaiah 11:2; 42:1. Together with His offices of Priest and Prophet, the term emphasises His role as the Perfect Official – the Restorer and Deliverer of Israel – Luke 24:21; Acts 4:26.

In terms of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, the Qumran Essene community, authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, expected two figures, the Anointed of Aaron and the Anointed of Israel (1QS 9:11) – the former Priestly, the latter Kingly, and thus inferior to former, (remembering that Qumran was a priestly community). The common hope of most Jews awaited a political/military deliverer who would overthrow the Romans and establish the Davidic Kingdom. Because of this, Jesus was reluctant to employ the term Messiah publicly, especially early in His ministry, so as to avoid misinterpretation. Jesus considered Himself not only the Bringer of the Kingdom of God, but its embodiment – Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:15, Once He had explained His concept of Messiahship, He was willing to accept the term, e.g. John 4:25-26; Mark 8:29, He had to clarify three points in particular:

1. That His Messiahship was characterised by universalism, rather than particularism – John 4:19-23, especially v21; Luke 13:29.

2. His kingdom was spiritual, rather than political – John 18:36.

3. He emphasised that the way to the Crown was the Cross – that the Messiah must suffer – Mark 8:31; John 12:32-34, a concept foreign to the Messianic concept held by current Judaism. For this reason, Jesus used the term ‘Son of Man’, which, whilst associated with authority, was not so linked to nationalistic aspirations.

Guthrie’s New Testament Theology examines the Hebrew background to the Messianic concept, and explains it as follows:

In the Old Testament much is said, especially in the prophets, about the coming messianic age which offered bright prospects to the people of God (cf. Is. 26-29; 40ff; Ezk. 40-48; Dn. 12; Joel 2:28-3:21), but little is said about the Messiah. The title is nowhere used of the coming deliverer. Indeed the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself. But though the absolute use of the term ‘Messiah’ does not occur, there are various uses of the word in a qualified way, such as the Lord’s Messiah (i.e. anointed one). The idea of anointing a person for a special mission appears in a variety of applications, but mainly of kings and priests (Lv. 4:3ff), also of prophets (1 Ki. 19:16) and patriarchs (Ps. 105:15) (cf 1 Sa. 24:6ff; 26:9ff), and even of a heathen king, Cyrus (Is. 45:1). This use of anointing to indicate a specific office became later applied in a more technical sense of the one who, par excellence, would be God’s chosen instrument in the deliverance of his people. The OT without doubt prepares the way for the Messiah and many OT messianic passages are cited in the NT.

During the intertestamental period, the meaning of the term underwent some modifications, in which the technical sense of the Lord’s anointed one becomes more dominant (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17-18). The hope of the coming Messiah took many different forms, but the predominant one was the idea of the Davidic king, who would establish an earthly kingdom for the people of Israel and would banish Israel’s enemies. The Messiah was to be a political agent, but with a religious bias. The concept was a curious mixture of nationalistic and spiritual hopes…

In the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, both which were contemporary with the emerging church, the term occurs, and as in the intertestamental period seems to be linked with the idea of the Davidic son, specifically so in 4 Ezra 12:32-34.40 In the Targums there a frequent technical use of the word mesia, although in view of the difficulty of dating, the value of this evidence is doubtful.

From this brief survey of the background, it becomes clear that whereas the idea of a coming Messiah was widespread among the Jews, the origin and character of the coming Messiah was not clearly understood. Different groups tended to visualize a Messiah who would be conducive to their own tenets – priestly groups like Qumran in priestly terms, nationalist groups in political terms. In determining the approach of Jesus to the term ‘Messiah’ we must bear in mind that he would be concerned with the most popular understanding of the term and there is little doubt that popular opinion leaned heavily towards hope of a coming political leader who would deliver the Jewish people from the oppressive Roman yoke. When seen against this prevalent notion, it is understandable why Jesus avoided the use of the term. 4

We can see why Jesus was reticent about employing the term in public, because of the possibilities of misunderstanding. His kingdom was not of an earthly, political character, and he rejected the invitation to become a monarch of this nature, as can be inferred both from His rejection of Satan’s temptation to become the global ruler on the Devil’s terms, Matthew 4:8-10, and of the attempt of some Jews to install Him as their King, John 6:15. It is for this reason that He commanded His disciples to be silent about His Messianic identity, Matthew 16:20. A further problem was the means by which He would commence His Messianic reign – namely, His death. Immediately after the Petrine confession of faith in Jesus as Messiah in Matthew 16:16, Jesus begins to inform His disciples about His coming death, something they find it hard to understand. The Jews also did not understand, believing that the Messiah ‘remained forever’, John 12:34. This misunderstanding remained until after Jesus’ resurrection, when He informed the disciples about the necessity of His first enduring death as the means to obtaining His reign, Luke 24:26, and their misconceptions were not fully removed until after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then they realised how it was only after His death, resurrection and ascension that He could begin His cosmic reign.

An essential aspect of Messianic identity is Davidic ancestry. In 2 Samuel 7:12-14, we encounter the promise to David that his offspring will be king – ‘I will establish your offspring after you… 13 …I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son…’ Psalm 72:17 celebrates the eternal, universal reign of the Davidic King: ‘His name shall endure for ever; His name shall continue as long as the sun: All nations shall be blessed in him; And men shall call him blessed’. It is significant, as we shall see, that another, closely-related title of Jesus is ‘Son of David’. This in itself proves the so-called Gospel of Barnabas to be fraudulent, since the forgery claims that Muhammad, rather than Jesus, is the Messiah, leaving aside the fact that the Qur’an appends this title only to Jesus, it is obvious that Muhammad, not being a descendant of David, could not claim this prerogative.

2 Samuel 7:14 states that the son of David would also be the son of God, reiterated in Psalm 2:7, which Acts 13:33 states is fulfilled in the Resurrection. We should note that the Septuagint rendering of 2 Samuel 7:12 says ‘anastasw to sperma mou meta se [anastaso to sperma mou meta se] which may be translated ‘I will resurrect your offspring after you…’ 5 Most importantly, it is clear that the throne of David is simultaneously the throne of the Lord God – 1 Chronicles 29:23 – ‘Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king…’ [Significantly, the Kingdom is stated to be both God’s and Christ’s – Ephesians. 5:5]. It is clear that the aspect of divine sonship involved here is synonymous with kingship – when the son of David mounted the throne, then he became the son of God in this sense. As the Heir of David the King, he was the Heir of God, but he was only inaugurated as such and entered into the full exercise of his power when he ascended the throne. This necessitated His death and resurrection, and thus His Ascension into heaven. In this context, we should note the import of Matthew 16:16 and John 20:31, where the titular use of ‘Christ’ is obviously synonymous with ‘Son of God’.

This causes problems for Muslims, since the very title ‘Son of God’ is anathema to them. Yet it can be seen from the Old Testament references the inter-relation of the two terms is not a Christian invention, still less a ‘Pauline’ or Nicene innovation. If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, then He simultaneously claimed to be the Son of God. All of this is particularly significant since the Qur’an nowhere explains the meaning of Al-Masih. The Arabic, like the Hebrew, means ‘anointed’, but we are never told as what. We can only learn this from the Christian Scriptures. This in itself demonstrates the dependence of the Qur’an upon the Bible. Of course, this immediately raises problems for Muslims, since we can see that the Biblical definition of a Messiah is at variance with important aspects of Islamic Christology.

R. H. Fuller observes some important aspects of the Messianic hope of the Old Testament. In regard to Isaiah 7:10-16, he suggests that the term ‘Immanuel’, which of course is used of Jesus in Matthew 1:23, ‘refers to an ideal king of the Davidic line.’ 6 He ‘will reign as the true embodiment of God’s presence with his people…’ 7 We can see how this can be linked with Jesus’ identification with the Temple, the traditional place of divine indwelling, now superseded in His person – John 1:14; 2:19 (Mark 14:58); Colossians 2:9. Jesus, being the ultimate Davidic King, eternally reigns, and perpetually brings the presence of God among His people. This, of course, points to the incarnation. Significantly, the Davidic King in Isaiah 9:6-7 is portrayed as an eternal monarch, and he is explicitly termed ‘Mighty God’:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

These texts are rich with implications for Messianic identity, pointing to a figure who is not simply human, even if he is the scion of David. This is especially true of the title ‘Mighty God’, used of YHWH in Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18. The fact that this divine title is ascribed to the ultimate Davidic King – the Messiah – is a clue to the fact that the Messiah would be simultaneously divine-human. Again, this causes problems for Muslims in that this portrayal is not the result of Christian ‘innovation’, but rather is present in the Old Testament. The learned Old Testament scholar Alec Motyer comments on the passage and its meaning:

Wonderful Counsellor is (lit.) ‘wonder-counsellor’ and ‘wonder’ … means something like ‘supernatural’. The two possibilities are either ‘a supernatural counsellor’ or ‘one giving supernatural counsel’… The decisions of a king make or break a kingdom and a kingdom designed to be everlasting demands a wisdom like that of the everlasting God. In this case, like God because he is God, the Mighty God (‘el gibbor), the title given to the Lord himself in 10:21<22>. Plainly, Isaiah means us to take seriously the ‘el component of this name as of Immanuel… Mighty (gibbor, ‘warrior’) caps the military references in verses 3-5.

God has come to birth, bringing with him the qualities which guarantee his people’s preservation (wisdom) and liberation (warrior strength). Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace describe the conditions the King’s birth will bring. Father is not current in the Old Testament as a title of the kings. Used of the Lord, it points to his concern for the helpless (Ps. 68:5<6>), care or discipline of his people (Ps. 103:13; Pr. 3:12; Is. 63:16; 64:8<7>) and their loyal, reverential response to him (Je. 3:4, 19; Mal. 1:6). For similar ideas used regarding the Davidic King see Psalm 72:4, 12-14; Isaiah 11:4. Probably the leading idea in the name Father here is that his rule follows the pattern of divine fatherhood. As eternal/of eternity’, he receives such an epithet [as] could, of course, be applied to Yahweh alone’… When the people asked for a king they had in mind that a continuing institution would provide them with a security greater and more reassuring than the episodic rule of the judges. But total security requires more even than this stop-go rule and is achieved in a king who reigns eternally… The focal point of the kingdom is David’s throne… In the light of this, we understand that ‘son’ in verse 6 must mean ‘son of David’. Here is the Old Testament Messianic enigma: how can a veritable son of David be Mighty God and ‘Father of eternity’? This was precisely the tension in Old Testament truth which the Lord Jesus tried to make the blinkered Pharisees face in Matthew 22:41-46. 8

In Matthew 22:42ff, Jesus presents a question to the Jews about the Messiah which points to eternal, divine origins of the Messianic Son of David:

42 What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he? They said to him, The son of David.

43 He said to them, Then why did David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet? (Psalm 110:1)

45 If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?

As R. T. France explains, ‘the point of the pericope is not that Jesus is not Son of David, but that he is more than Son of David.’ 9 The implications are that Jesus is the divine Messiah. Another indication of the divine nature of the Messiah is seen in Psalm 44:7f where the Davidic King is addressed as ‘God’ by God; this text is applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8f to Jesus. He is the divine Davidic King. This is also indicated by a point we noted previously that Guthrie observed about the Messianic Age – that ‘the agent for inaugurating the coming age was God himself.’ The nature of God is revealed in His acts. There is a relationship between the functional and ontological aspects of deity – what God does reveals who He is. When God brought destructive miracles upon the Egyptians, they were revelations to both the Egyptians and the Israelites as to the person and character of God – e.g. Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 8:22. The miracles of Jesus are called signs – John 20:30. They demonstrate His unity with the Father – John 14:9ff. In Acts 7 Stephen reviews the historical acts of God to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. It follows from this that if Jesus causes the arrival of the Messianic Age, then He is God Himself. Again, the inference we draw is that the Messiah is divine.

2. Son of David

This title is, of course, closely related to the term ‘Messiah’ such as to be virtually a synonym. The linkage of the term ‘Messiah’ with the Davidic line has its foundation in divine promise to David conveyed through the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7:16, and is witnessed in the canonical prophets (Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23f, 37:24, Hosea 3:5, etc.). It is also found in the intertestamental literature of Judaism (Ecclesiasticus 47:11, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:57; Psalms of Solomon 17:21 – ‘Behold O LORD, and raise up to them their king, the son of David… their king the Anointed [i.e. Messiah] of the LORD), in the Qumran literature and in 4 Esdras 12:32ff in the first century AD. The term does not merely imply descent from David, but rather that Jesus is His Heir – i.e. King-Messiah – Matthew 20:30-31. It indicates that He was the One to restore the Davidic State – Amos 9:11, looking back to 2 Samuel 7. This restoration was not just ‘political’, it was spiritual bringing the people to a holy relationship with God. This Jesus effects by the Cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

Jesus accepted this title when others offered it, but did not employ it Himself because of likely misconceptions, as we observed in our examination of the term ‘Messiah’. The True Israel – those with faith in Jesus – acclaim Him as ‘Son of David’ – Matthew 21:9, 15, the gospel presenting the Davidic Kingdom as embodied in Christ – cf. Mark 11:10. Matthew points out that Jesus was born of the house of David, 1:20, in Bethlehem, 2:1ff. What is especially interesting is that the term is associated with ‘healing power, either requested ([Matthew] 9:27; 15:22; 20:30f) or experienced (12:22f; 21:14f)… Mercy and healing are apparently understood to be the proper activities of the son of David…’ 10

This conception of the miracle-working Son of David points back to the expectation of God effecting cosmological wonders, especially the granting of light to those in darkness, and similarly sight to the blind – Isaiah 9:lff, 29:18, 35:5, 42:7, 16, 43:8, 61:1ff. This also includes spiritual darkness; in Matthew 12:22ff, Jesus exorcises a demon, leading to the multitudes asking ‘can this be the Son of David’, which is followed by Jesus’ assertion that His exorcism has made the Kingdom of God immediate, v28, indicating that as Son of David, He causes the Kingdom to come in. 11 This can be specifically linked to Messianic identity; in Matthew 11:2ff, we read of the ‘deeds of the Christ’:

2 Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else? 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.

The miraculous activity and preaching of the divine ‘good news’ reflects the passages in Isaiah we have already noted.

We also infer from Luke 1:68ff that the heir of David is the agent of salvation and redemption (cf. Acts 13:22ff). This Davidic heir causes the people to serve God in holiness and righteousness. The restoration of the Davidic State required – and effected – an ethical quality in the lives of its subjects – Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:17- c.f. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16. This in itself points to the spirituality of the Kingdom Jesus brought. Hence, when Jesus enters Jerusalem, recognised as Son of David, Matthew 21:9, He immediately cleanses the Temple, indicating the holy nature of His Reign. What is especially noteworthy is the linkage of the holy reign with miraculous activity. After Jesus cleanses the Temple, the blind and lame come to Him there for healing, v14. It can be seen that the Son of David simultaneously effects holiness and miracles. By doing so, He establishes the Kingdom of God.

3. Son of God

Three categories of person are given this title in the Old Testament: angels, e.g. Job 38:7, but this is always in the plural and played no part in the formation of Christology – Hebrews 1:5ff. The two others are:

a) Israel

Grogan points out that ‘In Exodus 4:22f. God appeals to Pharaoh as one father to another.’ 12 Israel was YHWH’s firstborn son – cf. Isaiah 1:2; 30:1; Hosea 11:1. The nature of this sonship is adoptive and its basis is election of purpose (i.e. redemptive mission – to be a blessing to the world – cf. Genesis 28:14; Exodus 19:6) expressed in Covenant relationship, and requiring obedience as its terms. Hence when Israel departed from terms of Covenant, the filial relationship with YHWH was cancelled – Hosea 1:9, The essence of sonship was obedience – Exodus 4:23 – the words of God through Moses to Pharaoh were ‘Let my son go, that he may serve me‘; Israel’s response to the divine revelation of the law was ‘All that the LORD has spoken will we do, and be obedient’, 24:7. Chesed, covenant-love, was not the experience of the infidel – Hosea 1:6. Cullmann writes: ‘In all these texts the title “Son of God” expresses both the idea that God has chosen this people for a special mission, and that this his people owes him absolute obedience.’ 13

This theme of obedient sonship is seen in the New Testament, in the life of Jesus. He is the Elect, i.e. Israel, because He is the Beloved Son – ‘o agaphtov ho agapetos – Mark 1:11, which is generally viewed as reflecting Isaiah 42:1 (and Psalm 2:7), and as such, is contrasted in the parable of the Wicked Tenants with infidel Israel of His day – 12:1-11, especially v6. Note especially the rejection of old Israel by God for killing His true Son – v9. As a result, as the Renowned Biblical scholar Alan Richardson observed, ‘The old Israel is rejected and is no longer God’s beloved “son”; the final act of disobedience is the killing of him of whom it might surely have been said, “They will reverence my son” (Mark 12:6).’ 14

Like Israel, the Son comes ‘out of Egypt’ to perform His mission and establish a new aspect of the eternal covenant, Hosea 11:1/Matthew 2:13-15. To quote Richardson again, ‘As Israel of old, the “son” whom God called out of Egypt, was baptized in the Red Sea and tempted in the Wilderness, so also God’s Son the Messiah is baptized and tempted; Matthew’s quotation of Hos. 11 (Matt, 2:15) contains profound theological truth…’ 15 Connected with this is the ‘love’ theme in the Gospel of John – 3:35 – ‘The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.’ The son of Abraham was described as agaphtov – Genesis 22:2, 12 LXX. The ultimate Son of Abraham is greater – He is the beloved of God Himself. Similarly, the son of Abraham was meant to be sacrificed, only to be replaced by a lamb; Jesus, the unique, beloved Son of God, is the Lamb of God who gives His life to remove the sin of the world – John 1:29, 36. Further, the very phrase employed in John 1:29 echoes the words of Isaiah 40:9 – ‘Behold your God’.

Another parallel is that Israel alone possessed the knowledge of YHWH, by virtue of its election, Amos 3:2 – ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth…’ Likewise, in the ‘bolt from Johannine blue’ Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 Jesus is described as possessing the unique knowledge of the Father – ‘no-one knows the Father except the Son’. The true knowledge of God is possessed only by the obedient Son. This demonstrates that Jesus is the ultimate Israel.

The setting of the Temptation by Satan in the desert, Matthew 4:1ff, is in the nature of fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus endures the same temptations as Israel faced whilst in the desert with Moses, but whereas Old Testament Israel miserably failed the test, Jesus passes with flying colours. Deuteronomy 8:2ff, looking back to Exodus 16:2-3, recalls how God tested Old Israel with hunger, a test, like the others, which would reveal whether Israel knew itself to be, and thus whether in truth it was the People of God. By its moaning and desiring to return to Egypt, Israel displayed itself devoid of faith and thus fails. Jesus, on the other hand, although hungry, does not respond to Satan, but quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 to display that His is the true Son of God, unlike the failed old ‘son’.

The Temple pinnacle temptation was to put God to the test. Faith in God does not require props, or constant dynamic displays. By threatening to stone Moses at Massah, Israel drew from the LORD the act that proved them to be His people – Exodus 17:1-7, so Satan tempts Jesus to seek outward evidence that He is God’s Son by forcing the hand of the LORD, but Jesus refuses, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16. The third temptation reflects the collapse into total lack of faith that characterised Israel in Exodus 34 when Moses was up the mountain. Israel committed idolatry. Deuteronomy 6:13-14 forbids the worship of other gods, and Jesus quotes this in passing the test here. The significance of this is that Israel was to secure its national existence by no compromises with the heathen, especially their gods. They were not to be a nation like any other, but rather to be a holy nation. Jesus refuses to the invitation to become a ruler like any other through the means Satan offers – obeisance to him, compromise with the forces controlling the world.

The consequence of all this is that ‘…Israel itself, the people of God, is seen as finding its “fulfilment” both in Jesus himself and in the community which is to result from his ministry.’ 16 Jesus is the ultimate Son of God – the fulfilment of Israel. This is a case of typological correspondence – Jesus is ‘something greater’ – than David, Matthew 12:3-4, so He is the ultimate Davidic King; greater than the prophet Jonah or the wisest of kings, Solomon, 12:41-42; greater than the temple, v6. Jesus is the climactic manifestation of that which they imperfectly represented. 17

(b) Davidic King

The King, of Davidic lineage, is termed Son of God in an adoptive sense – 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 89; 27f. Jesus is such, John 1:49, but as He impresses upon Nathanael, He is more – He is supernatural and pre-existent, v51 – ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.’ This reflects Genesis 28:12, of which a tradition interpreted the Hebrew as referring not to the ladder – ‘on it’, but ‘on him’, which is linguistically possible. The Midrash Bereshith Rabbah 68:18 reflects this tradition. The idea is that the ascending and descending angels symbolised the connection of the earthly Jacob with the heavenly image of the true Israel – remembering that Jacob’s name was later changed to ‘Israel’. The noted Biblical scholar Barnabas Lindars writes about this verse:

The meaning of 1.51 in its context must be deduced from the remaining words about the angels. There is widespread agreement today that John has composed the saying in such a way as to recall Jacob’s dream (Gen. 28.12), ‘And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it’.It is also recognized that the movement of the angels ‘upon the Son of Man’ has a parallel in rabbinic exegesis, in which ‘on it’ (the ladder) is taken to mean ‘on him’ (Jacob). This is possible in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. In the rabbinic exegesis the angels are familiar with the heavenly archetype of the righteous man, and are now delighted to discover the earthly reality in Jacob. It may be conjectured that the ‘greater things (John 1.50) which Jesus’ audience will see are something that belongs to a similar line of exegesis. They will see an act in which the Son of Man on earth reflects a heavenly reality. There is a sense in which this is true of all the acts of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. But it is especially true of the passion, in which death and glorification are two sides of a single reality. 18

In John 1:51, Jesus describes Himself as ‘the Son of Man’, which we will see describes a heavenly being. Jesus thus corrects or improves Nathanael’s perception – indeed Jesus is the royal Messiah, the Son of God in this sense, but He is something more – He is a heavenly being. Likewise, He corrects Nicodemus’ perception of Him as merely a teacher sent from God, John 3:2 – rather, He is the one who was actually of divine generation, being ‘born above’, John 3:3, who descended from heaven, 3:13, indicating that He is not just a human being.

(c) Messiah

Scholars have debated whether the Messiah was so-termed, but the context of 2 Samuel 7:14, together with the many linkages of ‘Son’ and ‘Christ’ would seem to underline this. The New Testament scholar Verseput notes that ‘the messianic reference of 2 Sam 7.14 – “he shall be my son” – was not entirely overlooked by first century Judaism. The Qumran text of 4QFlor 1.10 explicitly applies this promise to the eschatological “scion of David”, while 1QSa 2.11 may allude to Ps 2.7 in regard to the begetting of the Messiah.’ 19 Various texts such as Matthew 16:16; 26:63f; Luke 4:41; Acts 9:20,22; the expression of the High Priest in Matthew 26:63 indicates that contemporary Judaism identified the Messiah as such, in a moral-religious sense. Christ’s resurrection appoints Him, as the Son of God with power – Romans 1:4. It vindicates His claims and ministry. Moo notes an important consideration of this verse:

In speaking this way, Paul and the other NT authors do not mean to suggest that Jesus only becomes the Son at the time of His resurrection. In this passage, we must remember that the Son is the subject of the entire statement in vv. 3-4: It is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son. The tautologous nature of this statement reveals that being appointed Son has to do not with a change in essence – as if a man or human Messiah becomes Son of God for the first time – but with a change in status or function. 20

That to which Moo is referring is the structure of Romans 1:1-4, which testifies to the simultaneous deity and humanity of Jesus, that Jesus was in His divine nature eternally begotten by the Father, and in human nature, of the seed of David:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord…

To these aspects we add two categories of the term ‘Son of God’ that are unique to Jesus:

(i) Nativistic sonship

Matthew 1:18-24; Luke 1:35; John 1:13 – paternity by God through the creative act of the Spirit in Mary’s womb. What the virgin birth of Jesus in this regard does is to demonstrate His supernatural origins, cf. John 3:3. Jesus had no human father – His paternity was of a higher order.

(ii) Trinitarian sonship

Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Second Person of the Trinity – He is God; this is the primary meaning of the term as used by Jesus and New Testament writers. Significantly, at the Baptism, Jesus is hailed as the beloved Son of God by the heavenly voice (bat-qol). The baptism of Jesus is the climax of the ministry of John the Baptist, and it is significant how the ministry of the latter is described in Matthew 3:3 – ‘For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the LORD, make His paths straight.”‘ The quote from Isaiah 40:3 is unambiguously directed towards YHWH; yet here, John Baptist applies it to Jesus. Hence when the bat-qol describes Jesus as the beloved Son of God, the syntax and the theme of John presaging the ministry of Jesus indicates that the reference is not simply to concepts of royal Messiahship; something greater is contemplated. Jesus possesses a unique filial relationship to God.

There are several places where the absolute term The Son – rather than the technical phrase ‘Son of God’ – is employed with respect to Jesus. Whilst Israel and the reigning Davidic King could be described as the ‘Son of God’, the absolute term is unusual, and the contexts in which it is employed do not allow for the metaphorical usage associated with either the nation or the monarchy. We have previously noted that Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22, ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him.’ The use of absolute terms ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ points to an intimate relationship that goes beyond any adoptive sense. What is especially interesting is the reciprocal nature of the intimate knowledge Father and Son possess of each other. It would be expected that God the Father would have intimate knowledge of Jesus as He would of any individual.

However, two bold, surprising claims are made here; firstly, that Jesus, as the Son, possesses a corresponding knowledge of God, this in itself indicating that Jesus is not just human, since God is incomprehensible, with one clause in the verse agrees. Secondly, the text asserts that just as the Father is incomprehensible, so is the Son. So much so, that only the Father possesses such knowledge. This in itself points to the absolute term ‘the Son’ as indicating deity. Ladd writes:

In the process of revelation, the Son fills an indispensable role. ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ (11:27). ‘All things’ refers to ‘these things’ in verse 25, namely, to the entire content of the divine revelation. God, the Lord of heaven and earth, has imparted to the Son the exercise of authority in revelation; it involves the act of entrusting the truth to Christ for communication to others. The ground of this impartation is Jesus’ sonship; it is because God is his Father (v.25) that God has thus commissioned his Son. Because Jesus is the Son of God, he is able to receive all things from his Father that he may reveal them to others. The messianic mission of revelation thus rests upon the antecedent sonship.

What is involved in this relationship is made clear in verse 27: ‘No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.’ Something more is involved in this knowledge of God than a mere filial consciousness. Jesus knows the Father in the same way that the Father knows the Son. There exists between the Father and the Son an exclusive and mutual knowledge. God possesses a direct and immediate knowledge of the Son because he is the Father. It is very clear that this knowledge possessed by the Father is not an acquired knowledge based on experience, but a direct, intuitive and immediate knowledge. It is grounded in the fact that God is the Father of Jesus. In the same sense Jesus knows the Father. His knowledge of the Father is thus direct, intuitive and immediate, and is grounded upon the fact that he is the Son. Thus both the Father-Son relationship and the mutual knowledge between the Father and Son are truly unique and stand apart from all human relationships and human knowledge. Christ as the Son possesses the same innate, exclusive knowledge of God that God as the Father possesses of him.

Because Jesus is the Son and possesses this unique knowledge, God has granted to him the messianic mission of imparting to men a mediated knowledge of God. Man may enter into a knowledge of God only through revelation by the Son. As the Father exercises an absolute sovereignty in revealing the Son, so the Son exercises an equally absolute sovereignty in revealing the Father; he reveals him to whom he chooses. This derived knowledge of God, which may be imparted to men by revelation, is similar but not identical with the knowledge that Jesus has of the Father. The Son’s knowledge of the Father is the same direct, intuitive knowledge that the Father possesses of the Son. It is therefore on the level of divine knowledge. The knowledge that men gain of the Father is a mediated knowledge imparted by revelation through the Son. The knowledge of the Father that Jesus possesses is thus quite unique; and his sonship, standing on the same level, is equally unique. It is a derived knowledge of God that is imparted to men, even as the sonship that men experience through Jesus the Son is a relationship mediated through the Son.

It is clear from this passage that sonship and messiahship are not the same; sonship precedes messiahship and is in fact the ground for the messianic mission. Furthermore, sonship involves something more than a filial consciousness; it involves a unique and exclusive relationship between God and Jesus. 21

France echoes this observation, stating that ‘… “the Son” is seen to be in a unique relationship with God which is his by virtue of who he is, in contrast with the knowledge of the Father which others may indeed come to share, but only as a result of his mediation.’ 22 Jesus, as the Son, is unique. This must be emphasised, since whilst it is true that previous kings of Israel (and Israel as a nation) could claim metaphorical or adoptive divine sonship, Jesus is asserting something special – that He is uniquely the Son, that He possesses a unique knowledge of the Father, and that His own nature is unique such that only the Father knows Him.

Jesus also distinguishes Himself in His address to the Father. He uses the term ‘my Father’ distinctly; He calls God ‘My Father’, Matthew. 11:27; Luke 2:49; and ‘your Father’, Matthew. 5.16, 45; Luke 12:30; but never ‘our Father’, save as giving a prayer-form to disciples. He speaks in John 20:17 of ‘ my Father’ and ‘your Father’. The Jews recognised He claimed equality with God by the title – John 5:18. Again, the emphasis is on uniqueness. It has been noted that Jesus normally referred to God as ‘abba. This means ‘father’, and it has been claimed that it may also denote ‘daddy’, although this is now challenged. Although not unprecedented in Judaism, it not common for Jews to regularly address the Almighty in this intimate way, yet it was precisely by this form that Jesus generally spoke to God. The learned Biblical scholar James Dunn has observed ‘…Jesus regular approach to God as “Abba” appears to be unusual for his day.’ 23 Richardson comments with regard to Mark 14:36, ‘The use of ‘abba makes it difficult to deny that Jesus thought of himself as uniquely God’s Son, or to suppose that the church derived the idea of his Sonship from any other source than Jesus himself.’ 24

Another indication of the special character of the absolute term is found with relation to the end of the world. The date of the last day, Matthew 24:36/Mark 13:32, is known by ‘not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’. Ladd observes, ‘The force of this saying is found in the fact that such things ought to be known to angels and to the Son as well as the Father. The point is that Jesus classes himself with the Father and the angels – all partaking normally of supernatural knowledge. At this point, contrary to expectations, the Son is ignorant.’ 25 Further, the use of the absolute term in the context of heavenly beings is significant, likewise a unique character the divine sonship of Jesus that is not comparable to the adoptive sonship of the Old Testament Davidic Kings.

We earlier noted the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-6). The vineyard clearly represents the Land, the lord thereof is God, and the tenants are Israel – Leviticus 25:23 ‘…the land is mine: for you are aliens and my tenants’, cf. Isaiah 5:1-7. The servants sent by the lord of the vineyard are clearly the prophets, as Dunn recognises. 26 What is important in this context is that after the servants, the lord of the vineyard sends his ‘beloved son’ (‘uion agaphton) – the same term used at the Baptism and the Transfiguration in respect to Jesus. Again, the term ‘my son’ (‘uion mou) is employed in the Marcan text, v6. It would seem, therefore, that Jesus is distinguished from previous servants of God not simply by being the last or the greatest, but by being God’s Son. Ladd comments:

In the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mk. 12:1-12), sonship is again differentiated from messiahship and provides the antecedent ground of the messianic mission, After the visit of the several servants had proven fruitless, the landowner sent his son to receive the inheritance. It is because he was the son that the owner expects this last mission to be successful, and his sonship is quite independent of and anterior to his mission. It is because he is the son that he becomes the heir of the vineyard and is sent to enter into his inheritance. 27

A clear indication of the deity of the Son and the Trinity is found in the use of the absolute term in Matthew 28:19, where baptism is enjoined in the name (note the singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Father is divine, and it is clear from Matthew 1:18; 1:20; 3:11; 12:32 that the same is true of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the absolute term ‘Son’ is used in concert with ascriptions of the Deity. This becomes even more apparent in the Gospel of John. The use of the absolute term is found on the lips of Jesus several times there as well. 28 A clear indication of deity is found in John 5:23 ‘that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.’ The way one honours the Father is to worship Him – John 4:21ff. Hence, the same honour should be given to the Son – i.e. He should be worshipped, which means He must be God.

In John 5:21we read, unsurprisingly, that the Father ‘raises the dead’. What is arresting is that this statement is made in the context of analogy – ‘For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.’ That is, the Son possesses what is normally seen as a divine prerogative – the action of resurrection, including the choice of whom to raise from the dead. The object of faith and obedience is not said to be first the Father, but the Son – 3:36 ‘The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.’ It is faith in the Son that leads to the resurrection of the righteous – 6:40 ‘For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’

Furthermore, it is emphasised that the divine sonship of Jesus is unique – John 3:16 ton ‘uion ton monogenh – monogeneshas the sense of ‘unique’. William Walker observes ‘It is now generally agreed that monogenhv should be translated as “only” rather than “only-begotten”… monogenhv, as applied to Jesus, should be translated as “only one of its kind” or “unique”…’ 29Jesus is not just any son of God – He is the unique Son. As the New Testament scholar Walter Kümmel writes, ‘Thus the relationship of Father and Son appears to be that of complete equality, so that the Son stands beside God as a divine being and cannot actually be distinguished from God.’ 30 Kümmel also comments with respect to 8:38a (‘I speak the things that I have seen with my Father’), that ‘the Son’s present seeing and hearing has its ground in the Son’s pre-existent being with the Father.‘ 31

Hence, when the New Testament epistles take up this title, as in Romans 1:3-4; Galatians 4:4 (which indicates pre-existence); Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 1:2, 5, 8; 3:6, such usage is not a Pauline innovation, but rather reflects what Jesus Himself asserted – that He was the unique eternal Son of God. Ultimately, only God Himself – in the person of the Son, could effect the work of redemption.

4. Son of Man

This was the favoured self-expression of Jesus – used over eighty times by Him, and apart from only two occasions, by Him alone. The term is frequently misunderstood as an ascription of humanity. In fact, the term indicates that Jesus is a heavenly being. The existence of the Similitudes of Enoch, a Jewish apocalypse, does seem to indicate that there was a tradition of what Ladd describes as ‘a messianic title of a pre-existent heavenly figure who descends to earth…’ 32 The text of the Similitudes (62:7) presents the ‘Most High’ (i.e. God) as having ‘preserved him [i.e. the Son of Man] in the presence of his might…’He existed prior to creation, 48:2f. He is also described in 48:10; 52:4 as the ‘anointed one (Messiah) of the Lord of spirits’. The Son of Man later sits on his ‘throne of glory’, 62:5. The same chapter, v11, reveals his role in judgment.

A later Jewish work, 4 Esdras (Apocalypse of Ezra), displays a Son of Man (Syriac barnasa) identified with the Messiah (7:78, 29; 12:32), an apocalyptic Redeemer, who rides upon the clouds. Furthermore, God speaks of him as ‘my Son’, 13:32, 37, 52. He is described in 13:26 as the one ‘whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation’. In 7:28-29, God refers to ‘my son the Messiah’, who will die. In 12:32-34 we read of ‘the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will set them living before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But he will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people, those who have been saved…’ These works give an indication that the New Testament usage of the term was not innovative, nor was the connection between the Messiah and the Son of Man, nor the idea that this figure was also God’s Son.

(a) Origins of the Term

1. Psalm 8:4 – the parallelism would suggest that Son of Man simply means ‘man’. With this would agree the natural rendering of the Aramaic term bar nasha ‘a man’, ‘Man’, ‘the son of the man’. The psalm is used in Christological fashion in Hebrews 2. That this is not the meaning of the term as used by Jesus can be illustrated from an examination of Luke 9:58 – ‘And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.’ The great Biblical scholar T. W. Manson observed ‘…the simple meaning “man” is ruled out, since men in general have somewhere to lay their heads: the homeless man is the exception.’ 33

2. Ezekiel 37:3 – used vocatively ninety times in Ezekiel. Cf. similar usage in Daniel 8:17. In this case it would seem to indicate ‘Prophet’. Significantly, it is used of two men who had heavenly visions – Daniel and Ezekiel.

3. Psalm 80:17 – the context suggests that the term is equivalent to ‘Israel’. In this respect many scholars have seen equivalence between Son of Man and the Remnant of Israel, as we shall see. The Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) on this identifies the Son of Man as ‘King Messiah’.

4. Daniel 7:13, 14ff – a heavenly, supernatural being who comes to God to receive power and authority over all humanity. The contrast is with the beasts, representing the pagan nations, whilst the Son of Man represents, though is not identified with the Saints of the Most High – i.e. faithful Israelites. F. F. Bruce writes ‘…for Daniel the “one like a son of man” is not the symbolical personification of the saints but their heavenly representative.’ 34 In a sense, therefore, the Son of Man is the heavenly Israel – remembering the Midrash (rabbinic commentary) Bereshith Rabbah we observed earlier. It is clear that this is the usage employed by Jesus, so that this is the meaning intended by Him – e.g. Matthew 26:63-64; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:67-70 – as in Daniel 7, the Son of Man comes on the clouds. Matthew 28:18ff also reflects this – Jesus has been given cosmic authority. Stephen saw the Son of Man in heaven, at God’s right hand, i.e. the place of authority – Acts 7:56.

(b) Significance of the Term

(i) It stressed the heavenly origins and nature of Jesus – John 3:13-14. Jesus descended from heaven. There is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus is an angelic figure – in fact this is specifically rejected in Hebrews 1:4-7, 13. However, when we consider other aspects of the Gospel of John, especially Jesus’ clear affirmation of deity in 8:58, and the assertion of the Evangelist under divine inspiration in 1:1 of the deity of Jesus, we need have no doubt that when Jesus employed the term ‘Son of Man’, He was asserting His heavenly nature – i.e. that He was God.

To this we may add Luke 15:3-7; 19:10, which present the Son of Man as Shepherd of Israel – cf. Ezekiel 34:16; the Son of Man separates the Sheep from the Goats – and gives the kingdom to the saints – Matthew 25:31f, 34 – cf. Ezekiel 34:17, (and v13, 25). It is clear therefore, that far from indicating His humanity, the term implied His deity.

(ii) The term was His public substitute for Messiah – Mark 8:29, 31; John 12 v34; unlike the latter, the title ‘Son of Man’ possessed no ready-made Jewish ideas of nationalist aggression. It also allowed Jesus to indicate that He was the heavenly Messiah – E. J. Young in his commentary on ‘Daniel’ points out that ‘Among the Jews the Messiah came to be known as anani “Cloudy One” or bar nivli “Son of a Cloud.”‘ 35 Note also the connection of clouds with deity – Isaiah 19:1; Psalm 104:3. The noted Jewish scholar of early Judaism, Geza Vermes, observes the following points about the Messianic connotations of the Danielic figure in Jewish circles:

In the earliest comment available, that of Rabbi Akiba (died in AD 135), the mention of ‘thrones ‘in Daniel 7:9 is said to indicate that there will be two of them, one occupied by God, the other by ‘David’, the royal Messiah… A commentary on Genesis identifies the King Messiah as Anani, the last scion of the family of David mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:24, by interpreting his name from Daniel 7:13, Anani = ‘clouds’ (‘anane): i.e. Cloud-Man. The same explanation is incorporated into the Targum of 1 Chronicles 3: 24:

Anani is the King Messiah who is to be revealed.

The second tour de force is that of the Babylonian Rabbi Nahman bar Jacob of the early fourth century AD, who obtained the obscure Messianic title, bar niphle (‘son of the Fallen One’ in Aramaic = the ‘son of David’) from Amos’s allusion to the raising up of the fallen tent of David. His Galilean interlocutor, Rabbi Isaac the Smith, was not impressed, no doubt because for him niphle was not an Aramaic but a Greek word meaning ‘cloud’ (nephele). It is in fact likely that in Galilee, where Jews were to some degree Hellenized, Daniel 7:13 was the source of the half-Aramaic, half-Greek Messianic title, bar nephele, ‘son of the cloud’. 36

In Mark 14:62 the High Priest questions Jesus ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus replies ‘I am: and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Bruce writes about this statement:

It is as though Jesus meant ‘If “Christ” (“Messiah”) is the term which you insist on using, then I have no option but to say “Yes”; but if I may choose my own words, I tell you that you will see the Son of man…’ In this reply the language of Daniel 7:13f. is fused with that of Psalm 110:1, where one whom the psalmist calls ‘my lord’ is invited in an oracle to take his seat at Yahweh’s right hand until his enemies are subdued beneath his feet. 37

The conflation of the Davidic King with the Son of Man figure shows that Jesus both wished to avoid nationalist concepts of Messiahship by employing the Danielic term, and also to underline that He was not simply human. It is clear that the High Priest understood what Jesus was claiming, since he then accuses Jesus of ‘blasphemy’. Rowe notes that the Hebrew equivalent of bar nasha is ben ‘adam. 38 Rowe observes that in various Psalms, especially 80:17, this phrase is used of the Davidic King. As with the figure in Daniel 7:13-14, he is so closely associated with Israel as to be their representative. 39 Rowe notes that C. H. Dodd, an important Biblical scholar, in his book According to the Scriptures (p. 101f), saw that Psalm 80:17 with its identification of ‘”God’s right-hand Man” (the one who “sits at God’s right hand”) with the divinely strengthened “Son of Man,” might well be regarded as providing direct scriptural justification for the fusion of the two figures in Mark 14:62.’ 40 It can be inferred from this, and from the other Jewish traditions identifying the Son of Man with the Messiah and as the divine Son that the New Testament portrayal of a divine Messiah was not arbitrary or the result of Hellenising or pagan influences as Muslims claims; rather, it reflected existing Palestinian Jewish traditions, including, of course, those in the Old Testament.

(iv) The Son of Man is connected with judgment – cf. Daniel 7:26. The Son of Man has authority to forgive sins – Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24. Jesus has authority to judge because He is Son of Man – John 5:27. This shows the influence of Daniel 12:2, especially v28f. The Son of Man specifically judges Israel (i.e. the generation to which Jesus came) – Matthew 24:30, referring to the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, presents the Roman destruction of the city as the vindication of Jesus’ Messiahship (the same point is there in Acts 7:55-56) – cf. Matthew 26:64. The ‘Great Tribulation’ of AD 70 displays that Jesus is enthroned in heaven (not ‘sky’ as NIV) – cf. Acts 2:30, 33, 34-35, 36 – and note v40, cf. Matthew 24:34: that is, the Judgment on the Jews of AD 70 establishes that Jesus is the Messianic King. The Son of Man is also the universal judge – Matthew 25:32, despatching the Lost to Hell and the Righteous to their inheritance – i.e. Heaven.

(d) The Son of Man is a royal figure – He is given authority and sovereignty – Daniel 7:14; Jesus received this upon the Ascension – v13, Acts 2:30 – He sits on a throne. He judges from a throne, Matthew 25:31, as King, v34. Again, this universal authority reflects Messianic expectations, as witnessed in Psalm 2:8. Moreover, He gives the kingdom to the saints – Daniel 7:18, 22, 27; Matthew 25:34; Luke 21:28, 31. Note that this occurs through judgment – Daniel 7:22, 26-27; Luke 21:27-28.

(e) The Son of Man is associated with suffering. Whilst the actual figure in Daniel does not suffer, we must remember he represents the Saints who are enduring harassment. In Daniel 7:21ff, we encounter the ‘little horn’, usually considered a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Coele-Syria, who began the religious/cultural persecution of Judæa in 168-167 BC, of which the most serious abuse was the desecration of the Temple in 167 by the erection of a pagan altar to Zeus – the ‘Abomination of Desolation’. 41 Bruce informs us what this meant in practice:

The idea of centralization of the worship was abolished along with the other distinctive features of the old order; altars in honour of ‘the lord of heaven’ were now set up throughout Judaea – in the market place of Jerusalem and in every town and village throughout the territory. The inhabitants of each place were required to sacrifice at these local altars, and severe penalties were imposed on those who refused, as also on those who persisted in observing those Jewish practices whose abolition had been decreed by the king. What followed was in effect a thorough-going campaign of persecution on Religious grounds – perhaps the first campaign of this kind in history. To circumcise one’s children, to be found in possession of a roll of the sacred law, to refuse to eat pork or the meat of animals offered on these illicit altars, were capital offences. 42

This persecution, which involved brutal and often indiscriminate execution, was resisted by the guerrillas known as the ‘Maccabees’, more properly the surname of Judas, the son of the priest Mattathiah who began the resistance. After a four-year fight they prevailed against Antiochus, and eventually in 142 BC Judæa won its independence. Bruce notes the reference to this in the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees 13:41 – ‘In the 170th year [of the Seleucid era] the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel.’ 43 The Saints of the Most High, after their suffering, were vindicated by victory, and received the kingdom. The text of Daniel 7:21ff predicts this outcome:

21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom… 25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he will intend to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. 26 But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Wright comments on the chapter: ‘But when the “most high”, the “Ancient of Days” takes his seat, judgment is given in favour of “the saints”/”one like a son of man” (verses 13, 18, 22, 27); they are vindicated and exalted, with their enemies being destroyed, and in their vindication their god himself is vindicated…’ 44 Later in the Book of Daniel, 9:25, we read of an ‘anointed one, a prince’. The Old Testament scholar John Goldingay suggests that since non-Israelite rulers in Daniel are otherwise described, the likelihood is that here we encounter an Israelite figure. 45 Later, this ‘anointed one’ is ‘cut off’, v26, as Rowe states, ‘presumably by an untimely death.’ 46 Rowe also comments that saints of the Most High ‘suffer persecution and apparent defeat at the hands of the final king (vv. 21, 25; cf. Rev. 13:7).’ 47 It is at this point that Rowe observes that ‘in some of the psalms the Davidic king is said to experience suffering, while in Psalm 80, as ben adam, he is identified with Israel in their tribulation prior to his exaltation.’ 48 Earlier, Rowe noted the suggestion that ‘the king appears in situations of profound suffering, as in Psalm 22. A consistent line of scholarship has maintained the likelihood that the king took part in a temple ritual… in which he suffered humiliation before being restored to his throne.’ 49 Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings proposes a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, p. 58ff, and this seems to be borne out by the references in Enoch of the Son of Man being the ‘light of the Gentiles’, 48:4, and the ‘Chosen’, 46:2, terms usually attributed to the Servant, Isaiah 49:6; 41:8. In 4 Esdras 16:35 the subject is described as ‘servant of the LORD’. This suggests the existence of a tradition linking the Danielic and Isaianic figures.

From this, it can be understood that once the equation of the Son of Man with the Messiah is grasped, the New Testament concept of the suffering Messiah, as in Mark 10:45 (‘For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’) is not a Christian innovation, but reflects Israelite history and Old Testament doctrine. The suffering Son of Man/Messiah that was Jesus died to ransom His people, but His suffering was vindicated when He rose again (and note the resurrection references in Daniel 12), and then came to God to receive universal royal authority, as does the son of man figure in Daniel 7. Just as the foes of the saints are destroyed in Daniel, Matthew 24:30 predicts the divine vengeance on the city where the Lord was crucified – and the days of vengeance did indeed invest Jerusalem in AD 70, the sign that Jesus is the Son of Man who ascended to heaven to receive cosmic kingship. It is important to note how this was achieved. Jesus spoke of His crucifixion as an exaltation and glorification, John 8:28; 12:23; 13:31. The cross was His avenue to the throne, and even on the cross He dies as King of Israel, John 19:19.

5. Servant of the LORD

In the prophecy of Isaiah, we encounter a figure called ebed YHWH – the Servant of the LORD. The ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah, 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12 deal with the activities of this figure. At times the figure appears to be Israel, at others he seems to be an individual. In Isaiah 42:1ff, the Servant appears to be an individual who is commissioned for service by being anointed with the Spirit, who brings forth justice (mishpat) to the Gentiles. In 49:1ff, at first the figure appears to be an individual, then is identified as ‘Israel’ in v3, and then in v5 is commissioned to return Israel to YHWH! It would appear from this description that the Servant is a prophet, and it should be noted that the phrase ‘my servants, the prophets’, is a frequent occurrence in the Old Testament – e.g. Jeremiah 44:4. In Isaiah 49:6, his commission is greater than a particular call to Israel – he is to be a light to the Gentiles. In 50:4ff, he seems to be definitely an individual, and in v6 is presented as suffering – ‘I gave my back to those striking me, and my cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not cover my face from humiliation and spitting.’ Despite this, the figure trusts in the vindication of YHWH, vv. 7-9.

The paradox becomes greater in 52:13-15. God declares that His Servant will be ‘exalted’ (or glorified) and ‘lifted up’, the Septuagint employing the very words (dokew and ‘uqow) Jesus uses in texts such as John 12:23, 32 to describe His crucifixion, which will provide salvation for all humanity. 50 In the Isaianic text the Servant is simultaneously exalted whilst suffering, v14 – again, a parallel with Jesus in the gospel texts mentioned. In v15 it is stated that it is precisely through this means that he will sprinkle many nations (‘many’ is a Semitism for ‘all’). Motyer comments: ‘…the Servant “shall sprinkle… many nations”; his work is priestly, and many nations receive his priestly ministry…’ 51 Thus, the Servant is not just a prophet, he is simultaneously a priest. In 53:1-12, the Servant becomes a figure whose suffering is seen by others as the judgment of God, yet paradoxically, he suffers not for any wrong-doing of his own, but for the sin of everyone else, vv. 5, 12, and this by the determinate plan of God – vv. 6, 10, and through his suffering those for whom he is undergoing this scourging are declared righteous, v11.

Hence, when John 12:38ff quotes Isaiah 53, and v41 declares that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus and spoke about Him, the Gospel was not being arbitrary. Further, whilst other prophets may have suffered as a consequence of proclaiming their message to a sinful or apostate people, only this Servant suffers in the predestination of God as the very means of bringing salvation to those same sinners. We never encounter another person proclaimed to be a prophet whose suffering is seen as salvatory for others. Whatever privations Muhammad and his followers may have endured in Mecca prior to the Hijrah, it is never claimed that this suffering in itself was the actual means of salvation for those persecuting the Muslims. However vehemently Muslims assert the prophethood of Muhammad, they never claim that he was simultaneously a priest. Muslims are always loud in their denunciation of the idea of representative or vicarious suffering/sacrifice. 52 Yet it is precisely by the suffering of the Servant that redemption for all humanity is effected. His suffering does not bring salvation, justification, righteousness or anything similar for Himself, but rather for others. This figure cannot be Muhammad, but it clearly fits the Gospel portrayal of Jesus. As such, it demonstrates that the New Testament claims of His death being a priestly, sacrificial self-offering reflect the Old Testament and Jewish tradition.

(a) The Servant and the Son of Man

We earlier noted the suggestion in Bruce’s article on the background to the Son of Man sayings that there is a connection between the Isaianic Suffering Servant and the Son of Man, and parallel references in Enoch and 4 Esdras. 53 One of the reasons Bruce suggests this identification is that the sufferings of the Isaianic Servant ‘are explicitly said to procure the removal of sin for others… there is some reason to think that the Daniel texts we have been considering , and some others associated with them, had the Isaianic Servant Songs in view and were indeed intended to provide an Interpretation of them.’ 54 Bruce finds this association in the references to the ‘wise’ in Daniel:

One of the designations of the faithful in the time of trial depicted in Daniel’s visions is maskilim, the ‘wise’ or the ‘teachers’ (i.e. those who acquire wisdom or those who impart it, the latter activity naturally following from the former). The reference is especially to those who communicate to others the insight which they themselves have gained into the times of the end; ‘none of the wicked shall understand, but the maskilim shall understand’ (Dan. 12:10). Daniel himself is given such insight: when Gabriel is about to impart to him the revelation of the seventy heptads, he says, ‘I have come out to make you wise (le haskileká)… know therefore and understand (wetaskél) that… there are to be seven heptads…’ (Dn. 9:22, 25).

When the minds of many are shaken by the apostates, ‘those who make the people wise (maskilê ‘am) shall make many understand’, although their faithfulness involves them in severe persecution (Dn. 11:33). So severe will the persecution be, indeed, that some even of the maskilim will fall away, but their defection will but serve to refine those who remain faithful (Dn. 11:35). And when at last the righteous are delivered and the faithful departed are raised to everlasting life, ‘the maskilim shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness (masdiqê hárabbin) like the stars for ever and ever’ (Dn. 12:1-3).

It would be rash to draw too certain inferences from the coincidence between these instances of the hiph’il conjugation of skl and the opening words of the fourth Servant Song, hinneh yaskil ‘abdî, ‘behold, my servant will deal wisely’ (Is. 52:13); but that we have to do with more than a mere coincidence is suggested by the statement in Isaiah 53:11 that the Servant will by his knowledge ‘make the many to be accounted righteous’ (yasdiq… lárabbîm) -i.e. he will fulfil the role assigned to the maskilim in Daniel 12:3. But if Daniel is thus providing an interpretation of the figure of the suffering Servant, it is a corporate interpretation. 55

To Bruce’s observations I would add another. As we noted at the beginning of this section, the Servant at certain times seem to be Israel, whilst at others the figure appears to be an individual. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the Saints of the Most High – in other words, faithful Israel. Israel was depicted as God’s son, and so when Jesus was described as the Son of God, one aspect of the term referred to His being the true Israel, a point emphasised in the Gospel of Matthew by the reference to Him as ‘the Son of Abraham’, 1:1, and by the Wilderness Temptations. In the Gospel of John, Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the true Vine’, 15:1, in a context of sonship – ‘my Father is the vine-dresser’. By this Jesus did not mean that other vines were impostors, but that He was the true Israel. In Psalm 80:8, 14, Israel is described as the ‘vine’ God brought ‘out of Egypt’.

Parallel to the latter clause, we find Israel depicted as the son of God He rescued out of Egypt – Hosea 11:1 ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.’ This is interpreted in Messianic terms in Matthew 2:14-15 ‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.”‘ We have already examined the connection between Psalm 80 and the Son of Man figure, and it is significant that a variant of v15 in the psalm is ‘son’, rather than branch. At any rate, the representation of Israel as God’s Son, the link between faithful Israel and the Son of Man, and the fact that the Suffering Servant is depicted as Israel provides a connection between the different figures. Like the picture in Daniel, there is suffering, vindication and exaltation (cf. Isaiah 53:12).

(b) The Servant and the Messiah

There are indications in Isaiah itself that suggest a Messianic connection with the Servant. In 49:8 we read the following ‘Thus says the LORD, In an acceptable time have I answered you, and in a day of salvation have I helped you; and I will preserve you, and give you as a covenant for the people…’ As the Old Testament scholar Martens elaborates, ‘…the servant songs tapped the traditions of the exodus. Israel in exile is promise a return after the pattern of the earlier exodus… As at the exodus, Yahweh will have compassion on his afflicted (49:13; cf. Ex. 6:3)…. The servant delivers from a captivity which more than physical.’ 56 Earlier in Isaiah, we also read of the Second Exodus, but in this case, the agent is clearly a Messianic figure – ‘stem of Jesse’, a reference to David’s father. Motyer writes ‘The reference to Jesse indicates that the shoot is not just another king in David’s line but another David.’ 57 In this respect, we should note Grogan’s observation that the Servant in some ways ‘seems to sum up in himself elements of the three great offices of prophet, priest and king… like a king he wins victories and divides spoil (Isaiah 53:12) and is exalted to a place of great authority (Isaiah 52:13).‘ 58 Obviously, by definition, the Messiah is a king. Mark 1:11(the Baptism) conflates a messianic psalm, Psalm 2, with a Servant passage, Isaiah 42:1 – the Son is the Servant with whom God is pleased.

Like the Servant in 42:1; 61:1, the figure in Isaiah 11 is anointed with the Spirit, and like the Servant, whilst effecting the exodus, he also gathers the nations (Gentiles) to him:

1 And there will come forth a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots will bear fruit.

2 And the Spirit of the LORD will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD…

10 And it will come to pass in that day, that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, who will stand as a sign of the peoples; and his resting-place will be glorious.

11 And it will come to pass in that day, that the LORD will set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, who remain, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12 And he will set up a standard for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

It should also be noted in 11:4 that the Davidic figure destroys the wicked – i.e. the enemies of God. We have previously noted the Isaianic references in John 12, and two aspects of the ‘lifting-up’, which is explicitly identified with the means of Jesus’ death in v32, is that this exaltation is the means of the vanquishing of the Devil, v31 ‘Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’ Simultaneously this exalted death is the instrument for the gathering of all humanity to Himself – v32 ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.’ Again, in v20, Gentiles come and request to see Jesus, at which point He declares the time had come for the Son of Man to be glorified, v23, another allusion to His death. His crucifixion is the means of bringing the Gentiles as well as the Jews into a covenant relationship with God. In Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos. This is accompanied by the bat-qol in v35 identifying Jesus in terms of the Servant as ‘My Chosen’, as well s being God’s Son. Jesus death is the ultimate exodus that delivers people from spiritual darkness, in the way Martens suggested the Servant effects in the Second Exodus from Babylon.

(c) The Servant and Miracles

Both Islam and the Bible present Jesus as performing miracles, so this point is not contentious. What is interesting for this study is that just as the Messianic term ‘Son of David’ is associated with healing and deliverance, the Servant figure is likewise. In Matthew 8:16-17, we read the following, with reference to Isaiah 53:4:

16 ‘And when evening arrived, they brought to him many demon-possessed people: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick: 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.’

It follows that it is a common function of the Son of David and the Servant to heal and exorcise, indicating a Messianic connotation with the Servant figure. So, when Jesus heals or drives out demons, He does so as Messiah – as Son of David, and as the Servant of the LORD. This is important for the Christian-Muslim debate. When Jesus died on the cross, He did so to ‘exorcise’ the Devil – to cast out his dominion, John 12:31. This exorcising action is effected by the Isaianic paradox – i.e. by the suffering of the Servant. Similarly, the spiritual healing Jesus wrought by His suffering is demonstrated by 1 Peter 2:24, quoting Isaiah 53:5 – ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin, and live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.’ Jesus clearly saw Himself as the representative suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:12 – ‘numbered with the transgressors’, as witnessed in Luke 22:37 ‘For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, “And he was numbered with transgressors”: for that which refers to me has its fulfilment.’ Jesus definitely saw Himself as the one who would suffer death for sinners to bring them redemption.

(d) The Servant and ‘the Anointed One’

France points to another Messianic connection with the Servant to be found in Isaiah:

Isaiah 61:1-3 describes a figure closely similar to the Servant as depicted in Isaiah 42:1-7: both are endued with the Spirit of Yahweh, open blind eyes, and bring prisoners out of darkness. Both are, in other words, sent and equipped by Yahweh to deliver the oppressed and wretched, and both are characterized by their gentleness. This similarity has many to regard Isaiah 61:1-3 as a fifth ‘Servant Song’. 59

As France observes, Jesus identifies Himself with this figure in the Nazareth synagogue, at the beginning of His public ministry. 60 Jesus claims the immediate fulfilment of the passage – ‘To-day this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears’, Luke 4:21, which France describes as ‘a deliberate identification of his work as that described in Isaiah 61:1-3. He is the Lord’s anointed; the Messiah has come.’ 61 To France’s suggestions we should add that the pericope in Luke follows the Wilderness Temptations, when Jesus is assaulted for being the Son of God, which itself follows the Baptism, where the bat-qol describes Jesus as the ‘beloved Son, with whom I am pleased’, reflecting Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42:1. There is thus a logical progression in the events of Jesus’ ministry, as both Servant and Messiah, and as the Anointed Deliverer.

It is also significant that after being anointed by the Spirit at the Baptism, Jesus is said to enter the Wilderness being full of the Spirit, Luke 4:1, where he battles the Enemy, and then after His victory in the desert, He returns ‘in the power of the Spirit into Galilee’, 4:14. The implication in v23, and suggested by Gospel parallels (Matthew 4:23ff; Mark 1:23ff), is that Jesus had been performing ‘the deeds of the Messiah’ as we examined earlier – works of healing and exorcism. As France notes, the pericope identifying these acts, Matthew 11:5/Luke 7:22, is based on Isaiah 61:1 and 35:5-6 – ‘God’s time of salvation has come. Jesus is the one anointed to be the bringer of that salvation.’ 62 The two Isaianic texts are also linked by the common theme of divine judgment, retribution or vengeance, 35:4; 61:2. A further point of significance is that 35:4 warns ‘behold your God’, indicating a divine epiphany, just as 40:3, quoted of the ministry of John Baptist preparing the way for Jesus, Matthew 3:3. This indicates that the anointed figure we encounter in Isaiah is also divine.

(e) The Servant and Mark 10:45

A text that both conflates the Son of Man and Servant figures in pointing to the redemptive death of Jesus is Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28) ‘For the Son of man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’, which reflects Isaiah 53:12 ‘he bore the sin of many’. Guthrie observes ‘The idea of suffering would naturally link with the Isaianic figure.’ 63 We may compare this verse with Mark 8:31 ‘And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again’; cf. also Luke 19:10 – ‘For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.’ At first glance this seems strange, for, as we have seen, the Son of Man, in Daniel does not suffer himself. However, he does represent people who are suffering, and as the Isaianic figure is presented, it is through such suffering that He enters into His glory (cf. Luke 24:25-26). Mark 10:45 does indeed seem to presents us with Jesus’ death being representative/vicarious, which definitely fits the description of the Servant figure. Thus the description of the Anointed One/Messiah/Son of Man/Servant is that he enters His reign by a sacrificial death which secures redemption for sinners.

Lindars writes about this text, and its Isaianic connotations, especially with respect to its sacrificial aspects:

The sacrificial significance of lutron in the present passage is fixed by the words which immediately follow it, ‘for many’ (anti pollon). An astonishingly similar phrase occurs in the formulaic passage 1 Tim. 2.6, ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’ (ho dous heauton antilutron huper panton); cf. Titus 2.14. Seeing that the sacrificial connotation of lutron derives from the idea of a ransom-price (e.g., for manumission of a slave), the most likely Aramaic equivalent would be kopher… The word ‘ransom’ (lutron) should be regarded as interpretative. It is not a quotation from Isa. 53:10, but… the ransom idea is a legitimate way of interpreting the prophecy as a whole… the feature which gives to the saying its sacrificial connotation, i.e. the prepositional phrase ‘for many’ (anti pollon), also occurs in Mark’s version of the eucharistic blessing of the cup (Mark 14:24, huper pollon), and this is reflected in Paul’s version of the blessing of the bread (1 Cor. 11:24, huper humon, ‘for you’). 64

The problem of ‘ransom’ (lutron) not being an exact equivalent of m#) (asham), the latter normally meaning an ‘offering for sin’, is answered by the fact that lutron usually translates into Hebrew as Kopēr, ‘a covering’, similar to the Aramaic term Lindars mentions. The noun in related to the verb kipper which in Leviticus 5:16 expresses the effect of the m#) – the term employed in Isaiah 53:10. France, explaining Mark 10:45 in terms of its Old Testament background, makes the following observations:

Firstly, the meaning of substitution is not absent from m#):aaa while in Numbers 5:7, 8 it is a restitution to the one wronged (though, presumably, except in cases of actual theft, the restitution of an equivalent), in other cases it signifies the sacrifice presented to make atonement for the sinner; he is guilty (m#)) but the presentation of an m#) in his place removes his guilt. This is hardly distinguishable from the substitution of an equivalent, or, therefore, from the meaning of lutron. So in Isaiah 53:10, ‘the Messianic servant offers himself as an m#) in compensation for the sins of the people, interposing for them as their substitute.’ lutron or whatever Aramaic word lies behind it, is therefore not far from equivalent to m#). Secondly, Isaiah 53 as a whole presents the work of the Servant as one of substitution, in that in his suffering and death he bears the sins of the people, resulting in their healing; God places their sins on him, and bruises him for their iniquities. This idea of substitution is admitted to be central to lutron, and is even more obvious in anti [i.e. ‘instead of’]. Even if no linguistic echo were established, dounai thn quchn autou lutron anti pollwn is a perfect summary of the central theme of Isaiah 53, that of a vicarious and redeeming death.

pollwn (‘many’). This is probably the most commonly noticed allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark 10:45. mybris used in Isaiah 53:11, 12 to describe the beneficiaries of the Servant’s sacrifice (LXX polloiv, pollwn). Jeremias describes it as ‘a veritable keyword in Isa. 53’. Most scholars take it for granted that its occurrence in Mark 10:45 is a deliberate echo of Isaiah 53; it is hardly the word unless it had some such purpose. The other allusions to Isaiah 53 in this verse suggest that this too is a feature drawn from that chapter, where it is no less peculiar, and rendered conspicuous and memorable by its repetition.

The cumulative effect of these parallels in word and thought between Mark 10:45 and Isaiah 53 is sufficient to demand a deliberate allusion by Jesus to the role of the Servant as his own…The fact that the allusion occurs almost incidentally, as an illustration of the true nature of greatness, far from indicating that the redemptive role of the Servant was not in mind (for it is specifically the redemptive aspects of Isaiah 53 to which Jesus alludes), is in fact evidence of how deeply his assumption of that role had penetrated into Jesus’ thinking, so that it emerges even in an incidental illustration. ‘It is as if Jesus said, “The Son of Man came to fulfil the task of the ebed Yahweh“.’ 65

Similarly, Guthrie argues for the propriety of Mark 10:45 reflecting the Servant passages, and also points to Isaianic references in the Eucharistic words of Jesus ate the Last Supper:

There is, of course, no mention of ransom (lytron) in Isaiah 53, but there is a close connection between ransom and vicarious suffering. There is no great step from the servant making himself an offering (āšām) for sin (Is. 53:10), and the Son of man giving his life as a ransom (or equivalent substitute). Yet another pointer in the same direction is the use of ‘many’ both in Isaiah 53:12 and in Mark 10:45.

Some reference must be made to the possibility of an allusion to the servant concept in the words of institution at the last supper (Mk. 14:24 et par). Although the major background is clearly Exodus 24 and Jeremiah 31, it is possible that Isaiah 53 may also have contributed. The references to the covenant, to the ‘pouring out’, and to the ‘many’ all find parallels in the servant songs. It is not too much to claim that Jesus is here giving a definite theological explanation of his own. His statement is a contributory factor in our understanding of his function as servant of Yahweh. 66

The Eucharistic words of Jesus are an essential sign of the historicity of the Cross, an indication, if one were needed, that the Islamic denial of the Crucifixion is unhistorical. Jesus clearly foresaw that the redemption of sinners and the fulfilment of the Covenant demanded His death. Against the Muslim argument that such predictions were vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the event), the obvious response is that the nature of the Servant of the LORD as prophesied in Isaiah demanded such suffering, and demonstrated that this Passion would be both redemptive and vicarious/representative. Centuries before the advent of the New Testament Church, Israel was expected a Suffering Servant – one whose Passion would bring salvation for sinners. It really would require a miracle of ingenuity to invent such close correlation between the picture of the Servant in Isaiah and what Jesus predicted at the Last Supper in Mark 14:24. To quote France again:

The phrase ‘the blood of the covenant’ is… a typological reference to Exodus 24:8. However, the Servant is twice referred to as a covenant to the people. O. Cullmann goes so far as to rank the re-establishment of the covenant as one of the two ‘essential characteristics’ of the Servant. There are, of course, many other Old Testament references to the covenant, and this alone could not constitute an allusion to the Servant theme, but it does not stand alone. The following words are toekcunnomenon uper pollwn (‘which is poured out for many’; Mt. to peri pollwn ekcunnomenon).

The word ekcunnomenon is reminiscent of Isaiah 53:12 hreh ‘he poured out his soul’. But whereas in Isaiah 53 hreh is a strange and rather mysterious metaphor, in Mark 14:24 ekcunnomenon is the natural word for the shedding of blood, and need not in itself demand an Old Testament background. Like the reference to the covenant, its allusion to the Servant idea is only clearly established by its conjunction with the more obviously allusive phrase uper (peri) pollwn.

‘uper pollwn is as strange an expression for Jesus to use here as was anti pollwn in Mark 10:45, and the allusion to Isaiah 53 is as widely recognized here as there. In fact the two references reinforce each other. While ‘uper (and still more the Matthean peri) is not so clearly substitutionary as anti, it is a very appropriate word for the vicarious death of the Servant. So not only the word pollwn but the whole idea of ‘dying on be-half of’ which is central to Mark 14:24, renders an allusion to the Servant theme virtually certain.

The connection of these words with the covenant idea is significant. In Isaiah 42-53 Yahweh makes his Servant a covenant to the people, and this involves his vicarious death for their redemption. Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, whose primary purpose is to explain to the disciples how his coming death is to benefit them, are drawn not only from Exodus 24:8 (and probably Jeremiah 31:31), but also from Isaiah 53. His work is to re- establish the broken covenant, but this can be done only by fulfilling the role of the Servant in his vicarious death. To make this point Jesus chooses words from Isaiah 53 which are as deeply imbued as any with the redemptive significance of that death, in that they highlight its vicarious nature.

Thus here, if anywhere, we have a deliberate theological explanation by Jesus of the necessity for his death, and it is not only drawn from Isaiah 53, but specifically refers to the vicarious and redemptive suffering which is the central theme of that chapter. 67

(f) The Servant and the Triumphal Entry

Another Messianic connection, one indicating that the Messiah would suffer and die to establish His ministry, is found in the figure of the Shepherd-King of Zechariah 9-14. The Entry into Jerusalem, with Jesus riding humbly on an ass, Mark 11:1ff; Matthew 21:1ff; Luke 19:29ff, reflect the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9-10 – ‘9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king comes to you; he is just, and endowed with salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10 … he shall speak peace unto the nations…’ Humility, of course, is a characteristic of the Suffering Servant, and contrasts with the usual royal perceptions. 68 More suggestive analogies are found with respect to Zechariah 12:12 and 13:7. In Zechariah 12:10-12, we find the following reference to mourning:

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and they will weep bitterly for him, like the bitter weeping for his first-born.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves.

France points out that this figure is both Messianic and causes salvation to be effected through his murder, and thus provides a link with the Isaianic figure of the Suffering Servant. He also suggests this provides the basis for Matthew 24:30 – ‘then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’:

Whatever the explanation of the strange first person yl) the one pierced is clearly connected with the Messianic figures of 11:4-14 and 13:7; in the former passage the subject is the rejection of the good shepherd by the people, and in the latter his smiting by the sword of God… these passages predict the hostile reaction of Israel to the Messianic king of 9:9-10, involving not only contemptuous rejection, but (whether figuratively or literally) his murder. It is only after they have murdered him that the memory of his martyrdom will cause their repentance, and thus, after thorough purification, their final salvation. It seems, then, that in this martyrdom with its issue in the salvation of God’s people Jesus saw a prediction of his own fate. 69

Hence, here we have a picture of a suffering Messianic figure. It should also be noted that the one pierced in the Zechariah passage is God. However, In John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7 the object of piercing is clearly Jesus, referring to the spear piercing Him on the Cross, John 19:34. The interchange between the figures of God and David in the Zechariah passage is significant for the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament. The other Zechariah text, 13:7, is further evidence both of a suffering Messianic character and also an indication of the divinity of the figure: ‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, says the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered…’ France comment that this shepherd ‘is described by Yahweh as ytym(…rbg…y(r (‘my shepherd, the man that is my fellow’, RV), implying a close relationship with Yahweh.’ 70 Later, France observes that this designation indicates a peculiarly close relationship to YHWH:

Yahweh describes him as ytym(…rbg…y(r (RSV ‘My shepherd… the man who stands next to me’). tym(implies kinship; its only other use in the Old Testament is to describe a ‘fellow-Israelite’, and it is probably derived from a root denoting ‘family connection’. This figure is thus more than Yahweh’s ‘associate’ or even ‘companion’; he is his ‘kinsman’. Thus the two passages Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 together suggest a relationship between Yahweh and his representative, the smitten Shepherd-King, which amounts at least to a close ‘kinship’, even to identification. And these two passages are both applied by Jesus to himself. In neither case is the phrase in question actually cited) but the identification of himself with this Messianic figure, which Jesus’ allusions take for granted, could not have been made without an awareness of the implication that he was closely related to Yahweh, and that his suffering was the suffering of Yahweh himself. 71

Similarly, Fairbairn, the great expert on Biblical typology, observed how this passage indicated that this shepherd was divine, and that this was one aspect of what Jesus was claiming in Matthew 26:31, since the passage claims that the figure is the LORD’s fellow ‘or rather His near relation – for so the word in the original imports; and hence, when spoken of any one’s relation to God, it can not possibly denote a mere man, but can only be understood of one who, by virtue of His divine nature, stands on a footing of essential equality with God.’ 72 The other point of course, is that this is ‘a Messianic personage’, as France suggests, and the text clearly indicates that He is made to suffer by God:

The terminology strongly suggests this exegesis, and it is strengthened by the close correspondence with 12:10, for in both passages the wounding of a figure closely associated with Yahweh leads, through mourning or refining, to salvation.

Jesus’ application of the passage is explicit. He is this Messianic shepherd, and as such he is to be smitten. His Messianic work is to be accomplished through suffering, for only so can the predicted salvation come. 73

It can be seen from this that when Jesus, in His Eucharistic words at the Last Supper cited this prophecy as being of Himself, clearly with relation to the Cross (Matthew 26:31 ‘Then Jesus said to them, All of you will fall away because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’), He was not being arbitrary in presenting an image of a suffering Messiah. It should be remembered that in the Old Testament, Israel is portrayed as the Flock of which YHWH is ‘Shepherd ‘- i.e. ‘Ruler’ – e.g. Psalms 23; 78:52; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3. The term is also used of the Kings – under God, Kings were shepherds of Israel -1 Samuel 17:34-36; Jeremiah 23:1-4. Interestingly, it appears to be a definite Messianic term – Ezekiel 34:23 predicts a Davidic Shepherd, as does Jeremiah 23:4f. By this title, then, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, seen especially in His calling of the Gentiles, John 10:16. He was also making an implicit claim to deity. Most pertinently, This displays that there was a tradition that a Messianic figure would suffer, representing His people.

McKenzie comments on this representative royal role ‘…the Jerusalem king became the representative of Israel before Yahweh, the leader of his people in cult and the recipient of the divine oracles by which the will of Yahweh was communicated to Israel.’ 74 The King caused the people to be either holy or sinful. For example, under Manasseh, the people were led astray – 2 Kings 21:7-9; 2 Chronicles 33:7-9. The Rule of an evil king caused the people to forsake the covenant and thus cease to fulfil the purposes of God. When, chastised and repentant, Manasseh obeyed the covenant, the people likewise conformed to the covenant – 2 Chronicles 33:15-17. Hence Kingship in loyalty to the Davidic Covenant causes the People of God to be holy. In this light, we can understand the import of Jesus dying as the representative ‘King of the Jews’ – in connection with the Servant theme, His crucified glorification, representing sinners, enables their sanctification.

(g) The Servant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Gentiles

A further point in connection with this is how both the Servant figure and the Davidic King are related to the incoming of the Gentiles. The Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel 7:19, promises that the Dynasty will be eternal, and David’s response is to exclaim that this is the ‘Law for Humanity’ – tôrat hā‘ādām – not just for Israel. Walter Kaiser suggests the best translation for this is ‘charter for humanity’. 75 Personally, I feel that the obviously covenantal aspects of the promise are best served by retaining the reference to ‘law’. Certainly, Kaiser is correct when he argues that ‘the ancient plan of God would involve a king and a kingdom. Such a blessing would also involve the future of all mankind.’ 76 The Kingdom of Israel was ultimately to be worldwide. We find indications of this in Psalms 2:7-8; 72:8-11, Amos 9:11-12, and of course, in Zechariah 9:9-10. This concept of the Davidic King being the ‘Law for Humanity’ parallels the ministry of the Servant in being ‘a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles’, Isaiah 42:6.

To conclude on the Suffering Servant/Messiah theme, Vermes notes rabbinical traditions of a slain Messiah connected with the figure of Zechariah 12, including the Targum on the passage. 77 Chilton observes that the Isaiah Targum ‘The Targum shows us that the term “servant” could he taken as a designation of the messiah (cf. 43:10). This is particularly the case at 52:13 and 53:10. The Targum indeed interprets 52:13-53:12 as a whole so as to insist on the glorification of the messiah, but it also …refers to the possibility that the messiah might die (53:12 “he delivered his soul to death”).’ 78 Kümmel observes that 4 Ezra 7:29 states that ‘my servant the Messiah shall die’. 79 There does seem to have been a definite Jewish tradition, both in the Bible and in interpretations based upon it, of a suffering or slain Messiah. Jesus could appeal to the Biblical traditions of a lowly, humble Shepherd King, who would suffer, be vindicated, and then enter His glory, whilst securing redemption for sinners by his action, including the Gentiles. France notes that the emphasis of Jesus falls ‘almost exclusively on Zechariah 9-14, Isaiah 53, and Daniel 7, …where it can plausibly be claimed that the suffering of the Messiah is predicted.’ 80

(h) The Servant and the sword

Before ending this section, we should return to the character of Jesus in Luke 22:37, the verse followed by the enigmatic reference to ‘two swords’, and preceded by the apparent injunction of Jesus to purchase a sword. Of course, we never encounter Jesus engaging in political violence as did some of His contemporaries, nor did he wield the sword like Muhammad. Muslims often find this pacifism incomprehensible, especially since all prophets brought the same message, and presumably believed in jihad, as indeed the Qur’an affirms the Injil does – Surah Tauba 9:111. However, the fact that we encounter a reference to the Suffering Servant in this passage in Luke argues against what the Qur’an affirms. Bruce explains the meaning of this difficult text:

Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally. He goes on to tell how, a few hours later, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples let fly with a sword -probably one of the two which they had produced at the supper table – and cut off an ear of the high priest’s slave. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ and healed the man’s ear with a touch (Luke 22:49-51).

So what did he mean by his reference to selling one’s cloak to buy a sword? He himself was about to be condemned as a criminal, ‘reckoned with transgressors’, to use language applied to the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:12. Those who until now had been his associates would find themselves treated as outlaws; they could no longer count on the charity of sympathetic fellow-Israelites. Purse and bag would now be necessary. Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow-members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.

But Jesus does not envisage bandits as the kind of people against whom his disciples would require protection: they themselves would be lumped together with bandits by the authorities, and they might as well act the part properly and carry arms, as bandits did. Taking him literally, they revealed that they had anticipated his advice: they already had two swords. This incidentally shows how far they were from resembling a band of Zealot insurgents: such a band would have been much more adequately equipped. And the words with which Jesus concluded the conversation did not mean that two swords would be enough; they would have been ludicrously insufficient against the band that came to arrest him, armed with swords and clubs. He meant ‘Enough of this!’ – they had misunderstood his sad irony, and it was time to drop the subject. T. W. Manson rendered the words ‘Well, well’. 81

A modern New Testament expert, Professor Richard Hays of Duke University, has also examined the text in depth, and his conclusions are similar to those of Bruce about the rejection of militant attitude in the passage:

Again in this passage the reference to a sword has a figurative purpose. On the night of his arrest, just after his last supper with the disciples, Jesus reminds his followers of an earlier phase in their mission when they could rely on the goodwill and hospitality of those to whom they preached; however, they must now be prepared for a time of rejection and persecution. They will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of the fact that they must now expect to encounter opposition. As I. Howard Marshall observes, ‘The saying can be regarded only as grimly ironical, expressing the intensity of the opposition which Jesus and the disciples will experience, endangering their very lives.’ The disciples, however, give continuing evidence of their incomprehension of Jesus’ destiny by taking the figurative warning as a literal instruction: ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ Jesus’ response is one of impatient dismissal, indicating that they have failed to grasp the point: ‘Enough, already!’ Joseph Fitzmyer explains that ‘the irony concerns not the number of the swords, but the whole mentality of the apostles. Jesus will have nothing to do with swords, even for defense.’ The truth of this reading is confirmed by the subsequent scene at Jesus’ arrest: The disciples ask, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’ and one of them, without waiting for an answer, cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. Jesus, however, rebukes him (‘No more of this!’) and heals the injured slave (Luke 22:49-51). Here again, literal armed resistance is ex-posed as a foolish misunderstanding of Jesus’ message.

Such a misunderstanding is particularly ironic in view of Luke 22:37: the purpose of the figurative remark about buying a sword was to warn the disciples that the Scripture was about to be fulfilled. The passage cited is Isaiah 53:12: ‘And he was counted among the lawless.’ It should not escape the attention of Luke’s readers that this citation comes from the concluding verse of Isaiah’s prophetic description of the suffering servant, whose life was ‘handed over to death’ for the sake of the sins of many. This is the sort of dramatic irony that Luke, as an author, savors: while Jesus is trying to instruct the disciples about his destiny as the righteous sufferer, they are brandishing swords about, as though such pathetic weapons could promote God’s kingdom. No wonder Jesus impatiently puts an end to the conversation. 82

There are other indications that the Suffering Servant is a passive figure in this sense. In Matthew 12:14ff, we encounter the fulfilment of Isaiah 42:2-3. Jesus demonstrates that He is no Zealot, and is uninterested in the kind of militant confrontation that the Hadith presents of Him. The Suffering Servant is no Mujahid:

14 But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. 15 And Jesus perceiving it, withdrew from there: and many followed him; and he healed them all, 16 and warned them not to make him known: 17 in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet it might be fulfilled, saying, 18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved with whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare justice to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed he not will not break, and smouldering flax he will not quench, until he leads justice to victory. 21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope.

Clearly, Jesus’ attitude and conduct reflects the picture of the Servant in Isaiah, demonstrating that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus is neither arbitrary nor contrived. Jesus acted exactly as the Old Testament prophecy predicted He would behave. The Islamic picture of Jesus, whereby after His Second Coming He literally slays the Antichrist with a lance, is wholly innovative and contradictory to the ancient traditions of how the Servant would conduct himself.

6. The Prophet

Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts another prophet like Moses; Acts 3:22-23 explicitly identifies this with Jesus (22 Moses said, ‘the LORD God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers. You will listen to everything he says to you. 23 ‘And it shall be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet, will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’), and 7:37 (This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, ‘God shall raise up a prophet to you like me from among your brothers’) implicitly makes this identification.

It has been a consistent polemic of Islamic apologetics that Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts Muhammad, rather than Jesus. 83Essentially, this rests upon the phrase ‘from among your brothers’. On the basis that Ishmael and Isaac were brothers, and on the claims that Arabs were descended from Ishmael, and so were brothers of the Israelites, the claim is presented that Muhammad is the eschatological prophet foretold in the passage. 84 Of course, the immediate objection is that even if the racial identification were correct, this would not be evidence that Muhammad was the prophet in question. Secondly, and a point that totally undermines the Muslim claim, it should be remembered that Isaac had two sons, Jacob, who became Israel, and Esau, also known as Edom, the father of the Edomites, later called the Idumeans, who were Judaised under the Maccabeans. Hence, the racial brothers of the Israelites were actually the Edomites/Idumeans, rather than the Ishmaelites. Logically, according to the Islamic position, the prophet should have come from this people, rather than the Ishmaelites/Arabs.

However, this ignores Deuteronomy 18:15 – ‘the LORD shall raise up to you a prophet like me from among you, of your brothers; you shall listen to him.’ The prophet is to come from the midst of the Israelites, and clearly this does not apply to Muhammad, though it does fit the picture of Jesus. Moreover, the Hebrew word used for ‘brother’ is x)= (‘âch). The term is also used elsewhere in Deuteronomy, notably in 17:15, where, permission having been granted Israel to establish a king over them, they are told of the restrictions upon his identity. Primarily, he must be the one chosen by the LORD. Secondly, he must be from ‘among your brothers; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.’ Clearly, the Kings of Israel had to be Israelites, and since the same terminology is employed here as in 18:15, 18, this demonstrates that the prophet had to be an Israelite. It is noteworthy that when King Herod Agrippa, c. 40-41 AD, read the passage about the ethnic identity of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, ‘he burst into tears, as he bethought himself of his Edomite ancestry.’ 85Clearly, the reference to ‘brother’ was recognised as meaning ‘fellow-Israelite’.

(a) The Prophet and the Law

R. E. Clements observes that the text in Deuteronomy 18:15 is in the iterative imperfect tense, which ‘expresses a distributive sense.’ 86 For this reason he translates it ‘Yahweh your god will raise up for you from time to time a prophet like me from among you, from your own kin. Him you shall listen to.’ However, the Jews came to believe that an ultimate prophet ‘like Moses’ would arise from among them. Clements notes that ‘Early Jewish interpretation regarded the passage in an eschatological sense and took it to indicate the coming of of a special prophet in the future who would be like Moses, and who would fulfil a particular task in connection with the law.’ 87 Of course, this is what Jesus actually does perform such a work. Jesus claims authority to give a new Law – so like Moses, He is the Law-giver – the new Moses, antitype of the old. Moses was the Giver of the supreme revelation to Israel – the Torah: the parallel of John 1:17 suggests that Jesus brings a superior Torah (and we may link this with Hebrews 8:6). This is underlined by the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:lff, e.g. v21, where Jesus, while not abolishing the Law, supersedes it by fulfilling it, rendering the perfect obedience to it, and dying on behalf of sinners, so that His faultless obedience could be accounted to sinners.

The Law was the revelation of the mind of God: it was His revelation to Man. The Torah was called the Ten Words (dabarim), Deuteronomy 4:13, and 5:5 terms it the ‘word of the Lord’. John 1:1 states that Jesus is the Word of God – the embodied expression of the mind of God, clearly associated with the Law, v17, and revelation, v18. This should be linked with 2 Samuel 7:19 – where, as we have seen, David responds to divine promise of an eternal dynasty by exclaiming ‘this is the Law for Mankind!’ – (tôrat hā‘ādām). Since Jesus is the eternal Davidic King, He is the embodied Torah. Moreover, torah basically means ‘a body of teaching’ – and Jesus is the Great Teacher – John 3:20. Jesus was

(b) The Prophet as the Servant and Taheb

The death of Jesus as the Righteous One who fulfilled the Law, and thereby being the one who would ‘fulfil a particular task in connection with the law’ is emphasised by two factors. As we have seen, Luke 9:31, at the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah refer to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem as His ‘exodov exodos – an obvious parallel with Moses. The bat-qol, identifying Jesus as ‘My Chosen’, in echo of the Isaianic Servant, points to how this special function of ‘the prophet like Moses’ involved His death for others, as the Servant. Fuller notes that the Isaianic Servant was considered ‘to be the eschatological prophet like unto Moses’. 88 he also observes ‘certain Mosaic functions are later ascribed to the Davidic Messiah…’ 89

Fuller also observes that the Samaritans had a Messianic expectation, though not linked to David, since they only accepted the Pentateuch as the canon. This Samaritan Messianic figure was called the Taheb, the ‘one who restores (or ‘returns’)’, and Fuller quotes Cullmann (Christology, p. 19) as observing that this figure ‘performs miracles, restores the law and true worship among the people, and brings knowledge to other nations’. 90 It should be remembered that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, so clearly the passage in Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him if miracles are an essential function of the eschatological prophet. 91

The incident with the Samaritan woman in John 4:7ff should be understood in this light. When Jesus informs her that she has had several husbands, and is living with one who is not her husband, she replies, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet’, v19. Later, in v25, she states ‘I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ): when he comes, he will declare all things to us. 26 Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am he.’ Clearly, in this case, Jesus was claiming to be the ‘Mosaic Messiah’ – the ultimate prophet, for that is how the woman would have understood it, and indeed, this is how she presents it to her compatriots – v29, on the basis of Jesus supernatural intuitive knowledge. It should be remembered that there is a special emphasis in the Gospel of John on Jesus as the divine revealer – His miracles are called shmeia ‘signs’, 2:11. Jesus is the specific revealer of God – 1:18.

(c) The Revelatory death of the Mosaic Prophet and ‘Righteous One’

Even the death of Jesus is revelatory – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’, cf. Exodus 6:7; 7:5, where the exodus is a simultaneous revelation to the Israelites and Egyptians that the God of Israel is YHWH – ‘I am’. A further parallel is found in John 19:18 where Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyenenteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’. This is an allusion to Moses’ arms being upheld by Aaron and Hur in Exodus 17:12 LXX, where Israel battled the enemy (Amalek), and prevailed as long as Moses kept his arms up. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified (even to the point of physical resemblance, His arms being raised), therein destroying the enemy – Satan. Fuller comments on the New Testament picture of Jesus – ‘Jesus as the Mosaic servant-prophet – the Redeemer and saviour – leads the eschatological people of God into the promised land of the kingdom of God.’ 92

Fuller also observes that another title associated simultaneously with the Davidic Messiah, the eschatological prophet and the Servant was that of ‘o dikaiov ho dikaios ‘the Righteous One’. 93 This was a title of the Messiah, Zechariah 9:9 – ‘…your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation’; Jeremiah 23:5 (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:35). It was also employed of the Servant, Isaiah 53:11 – ‘my righteous servant’. Barclay observes that the existence of the righteous averts the vengeance of God – Genesis 18:23-33. 94 Jesus is the Righteous One – Matthew 27:19; Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Peter 3:18 – ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God’; 1 John 2:1 – ‘if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’.

(d) The prophetic silence and the bat-qol

One of the indications that Jesus was the ultimate prophet was the prophetic silence that had existed for four centuries. Dunn observes ‘The gift of prophecy was commonly thought to have ceased after the post-exilic period…’ 95 Especially significant in terms of Jesus’ experience of the bat-qol at both the Baptism and Transfiguration is the observation by Vermes that the bat-qol had been the only instrument of divine revelation during this prophetic silence. 96 He notes on the same page the famous decision by Judas Maccabaeus to remove the defiled Temple altar stones ‘until a prophet should arise who could be consulted about them’, 1 Maccabees 4:46. By contrast, the claimed prophetic ministry of Muhammad began totally in private – no public ‘heavenly voice’ confirmed his calling. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus meant ‘that Jesus was both called and charismatically endowed to be God’s messenger…’ 97

The theological import of this is the context in which the heavenly voice speaks – eschatological fulfilment, the public announcement of Jesus’ ministry as divine Son, Messiah and Suffering Servant. The prophetic clock was now ticking again. The only prophet to immediately precede Jesus was John the Baptist, who proclaimed that he was only preparing the way for the one following him. Jesus claimed to be a prophet, Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33. He was also recognised as ‘that prophet’ – the eschatological prophet. John the Baptist declined that designation, John 1:21, but Jesus was seen as fulfilling that role – 6:14 ‘This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world.’ Likewise the multitude in 7:40 exclaim ‘This is truly the prophet.’ The essence of a prophet was of a Man anointed with the Spirit, Hosea 9:7, commissioned by God to bring a message either condemning or encouraging, but always aimed at producing faith – cf. John 8:26-30. David saw his prophetic words as the work of the Spirit, 2 Samuel 23:2. Micah ascribes his prophecies to the Spirit, 3:8. Zechariah says that the ‘law’ (torah) and ‘words’ (dabarim) which the Lord spoke through the former prophets were ‘sent by His Spirit’.

Thus we see that the Spirit inspires the revelation of God; He is the author of prophecy. The Servant, the Superlative Prophet, who brings with His message social liberation and righteousness, Isaiah 61:1ff, does so because He is anointed with the Spirit, v1 (Isaiah 42 tells of how, because He is anointed with the Spirit, He brings Justice to the Gentiles, i.e. makes them worshippers of YHWH). We have already seen that in Luke 4:18f, Jesus declares Himself to be the fulfilment of Isaiah 61:1f. Significantly, Dunn observes that in the Qumran scroll 11QMelch, ‘the figure of Isa. 61:1 had been identified with the eschatological Prophet.’ 98 Dunn further notes that within Judaism, ‘to possess the Spirit of God was to be a prophet’. 99David Hill, Reader in Biblical Studies at Sheffield University, echoes this – ‘Within the Judaism of the time, the possession of the holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, was regarded as the mark of prophecy…’ 100 It is thus significant that John 3:34 records of Jesus ‘For He whom God sent speaks the words of God: for He does not give the Spirit by measure.’ In addition to Jesus’ possession of the Spirit, Dunn makes the important observation that Jesus’ actions were in themselves prophetic:

Jesus may have consciously set himself within the prophetic tradition by performing symbolic actions: the entry into Jerusalem, the purge of the temple, and above all the last supper (perhaps also the more obscure meal in the desert – ‘feeding the five thousand’ and the puzzling ‘cursing of the fig tree’) come to mind here. It is possible that Jesus thought of himself as the eschatological prophet, view of his application of Isa.61.1 to himself, but it would be more accurate to say that he saw his ministry as the fulfilment of several eschatological prophecies. 101

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman demonstrated His possession of the gift of prophetic insight. Dunn comments: ‘This “ability” to lay bare “the thoughts of the heart” was regarded by Paul as the distinctive charisma which marked out the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14.24f…), and it appears to have been regarded as the mark of the prophet by Jesus’ contemporaries in the same way, if Luke 7.39 is any guide.’ 102 Jesus also predicted the future – e.g. Matthew 24:3-35. Of particular interest is that He predicted His own death and resurrection – Luke 9:22 presents Jesus as saying ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.’ In a sense, the Last Supper was a prophetic enactment of His death on behalf of sinners. Barclay makes the important observation that ‘the prophets were characteristically martyrs’, noting how Jezebel slew the prophets, 1 Kings 18:13; 2 Kings 9:7, cf. Jeremiah 2:30. 103 Jesus noted how the paradoxical characteristic of Jerusalem, the supposed holy city, was that it slew the prophets and messengers of God – Matthew 23:37. Jesus knew that Jerusalem would treat Him, as the ultimate prophet, in the same way – Luke 13:33. 

(e) The Prophetic message of Jesus

The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God, i.e. the sovereign reign of God. He was the proclaimer of its restoration – Mark 1:15. This verse reflects Isaiah 52:7ff, which immediately precedes the Servant Song at v13. Ladd notes that ‘The prophets had promised a time when the good news would be proclaimed that God was visiting his people… A herald would appear publishing peace, announcing good tidings of salvation, saying to Zion, “Your God reigns…” In the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus claimed that this gospel was no longer hope but event (Luke 4:18).’ 104 Jesus was both prophet and prophetic fulfilment. Moreover, the message of the kingdom was intrinsically a case of realised eschatology – ‘The gospel is itself the greatest of the messianic signs. The gospel was not a new teaching; it was itself event. Preaching and healing: these were the signs of the presence of the kingdom.’ 105 We have already noted the connection of these factors with the ministry of the Son of David and the Servant., and the ‘deeds of the Messiah’ in Matthew 11:4-5.

The Kingdom of God was characterised by the intervention of the Spirit against demonic power, and thus by the miraculous – Matthew 12:28. Ladd comments ‘The meaning of Jesus’ exorcism of demons in its relationship to the Kingdom of God is precisely this: that before the eschatological conquest of God’s Kingdom over evil and the destruction of Satan, the Kingdom of God has invaded the realm of Satan to deal him a preliminary but decisive defeat.’ 106

Jesus was the embodiment of this doctrine – Luke 17:21 – ‘the kingdom of God is in your midst’. Its dynamic expression culminated in the death of Jesus as King on the cross. We have already seen how the Cross exorcises Satan, demonstrating the dynamic, sovereign nature of the crucifixion, and the salvation its effects. Hence, Jesus as the ultimate prophet is a charismatic warrior against sin, Satan and sickness, bringing us back to the Servant and Anointed One figures of Isaiah. In this regard, His prophetic enactment of His death at the Last Supper was entirely in keeping with His being the Ultimate Prophet.

(f) Jesus as Apostle

Only once in the New Testament is Jesus explicitly termed an Apostle, in Hebrews 3:1 ‘Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.’ It is significant that the term is parallel with ‘High Priest’. Barclay explains ‘The Greek word apostolos is really an adjective. It comes from the verb apostellein, which means “to send forth”…’ The nuance is similar, though not totally equivalent to the Muslim concept of rasul. Of course, even if the exact term is not employed, the concept is certainly present elsewhere in the New Testament, especially where apostellein is used. Jesus declared that He had been ‘sent’ – Matthew 10:40 ‘He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him that sent me.’

What is particularly striking, and an example of how Jesus united all these distinct but frequently related titles in Himself is how He could say that He was sent as the Son. The parable of the wicked tenants is especially helpful in this context. There, after the sending of several messengers, clearly the prophets, the prophetic climax is reached when the Son is sent. Moreover, this ultimate prophet, who is the Son, is killed. Jesus was clearly predicting His death as the ultimate prophet and divine Son. Again, we encounter this concept of the commission of the Son in the Gospel of John, e.g. 3.17, 28; 5.36; 6.29, 57; 8.42; 10.36; 12:49; 13:20; 14:24; 17.3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25. We have previously noted the emphasis on revelation in the Fourth Gospel. On the one hand, this can be associated with the message Jesus brought – John 7:16 ‘Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me’, cf. 3:34. The miracles attested His commission by the Father – 5:36. On the other, His ministry needs to be considered – as emphasised earlier, what is of special import is that Jesus was commissioned as the Son, who could be co-honoured with the Father, 5:23, and that the Son was sent to die – 3:16-17, so that those for whom He died could be saved. Jesus was sent to die.

Barclay observes an important aspect of the background to the term ‘apostle’ in Jewish usage:

Amongst the later Jews the word was in common use in its Hebrew form shaliach, which also means one ‘who is sent’. In all religious matters the Sanhedrin was the supreme governing body of all Jews not only in Palestine but also all over the world. When the Sanhedrin wished to despatch an instruction, a command, a warning to Jews in any part of the world, the bearer of it was known as a shaliach or apostolos… Saul, for instance, was the shaliach or apostolos of the Sanhedrin when he went to Damascus to organise a campaign of persecution against the Christians (Acts 9.1, 2). In Acts 28.21 the Jews of Rome say that they have received no letters from Judaea concerning Paul. That is to say, no shaliach or apostolos had come from the Sanhedrin with instructions as to how Paul was to be treated. 107

This understanding of apostolicity in Jewish usage aids our understanding of the revelatory ministry of Jesus. Jesus came as the representative of the Father to convey His will, John 4:34 ‘Jesus said to them, My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.’ However, there is an even more pertinent nuance to the phrase that Barclay demonstrates:

It is here that a new and very important element enters the meaning of the word. To the Jew the apostolos or shaliach was not only a messenger; he was a delegate who for the time being and for the particular duty assigned to him exercised all the power and the authority of the Sanhedrin. Hence the rabbis said: ‘The one who sends (that is, his apostolos or shaliach) is the equivalent of the man himself.’ ‘A king’s ambassador is as the king himself.’ An apostolos is more than a messenger; on him power and the authority of the one who sent him. 108

This helps us understand the import of Matthew 9:6 ‘But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he said to the paralytic), get up, and take up your bed, and go home.’ The One sent acted on the authority of the One who sent Him. The evidence was that the man was healed. To come back to the ‘prophet like Moses’, Barclay’s comments on the shaliach at this point are most illuminating:

To four great prophets the name of Shaliach was given, to Moses, to Elijah, to Elisha and to Ezekiel. It was given to them because God had in a very special way delegated his power to them so that they were able to perform miracles and to do the things which only the power of God could do. Moses brought water out of the rock; Elijah brought the rain, and restored to life one who had died; Elisha also restored one to life, and also opened a mother’s womb; and, based on Ezekiel 37, the rabbis said that Ezekiel would receive the key to the graves at the resurrection of the dead. The apostolos was not only the messenger of God; he exercised the power of God which had been delegated to him. It is in fact significant that in the passage of Hebrews in which Jesus is called apostolos the very next verse begins with a reference to Moses. By the power of God Moses delivered the people from Egypt; by the power of God Jesus delivered men from sin.

It is also to be noted that the writer to the Hebrews join in this same verse the two titles Apostle and High Priest. And one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ And so the apostolos brings to men not only the power but also the mercy of God.

So, then, the word apostolos as applied to Jesus means that Jesus was uniquely sent by God, and that Jesus is delegated by God to bring to men both the power and the mercy of God. 109

It can be seen here that when Jesus indicated that the Father had sent Him to die, the priestly aspect of His ministry was inter-connected with that of His prophetic commission. To ensure that no one misconstrued that it was purely this commission which made Him equal to the Father, Jesus in his prayer in John 17:5 could speak of His pre-existent glory that He enjoyed with the Father. Finally, the concept of the shaliach helps us with an issue often problematic for Muslims – the fact that the gospels and epistles were not directly written by Jesus Himself, but by His apostles/disciples. In John 20:21, Jesus says ‘…as the Father sent Me, so I send you.’ Each Evangelist was the shaliach of Jesus, and so could speak (and write) on His authority. He commissioned them with His Spirit for this purpose. Thus, the New Testament most definitely is the revelation of Christ.

(g) Final thoughts on Deuteronomy 18

Hill comments on the employment of Deuteronomy 18 in the life of Jesus as follows, showing how the ministry of Jesus was seen as fulfilling this prophecy:

It is probable that we should understand the words ‘listen to him’ (Mark 9.7 and par.) as an intended allusion to the ‘him shall you heed’ of Deut. 18.15, and it is in the Transfiguration narrative of Matthew (17. 1-9), together with the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7) that the Mosaic-prophet theme comes to the fore with clarity, though not to the exclusion of other imagery and not just as ‘a second edition of Moses, as it were, on a grand scale, but one who supersedes him’. In John’s Gospel we find, as one aspect of the portrayal of Jesus, clear indications that he is the fulfilment of the Deuteronomic passage. The sayings in 7.40 and 6.14 are based on the expectation of the prophet like Moses. In the former verse the people affirm ‘This is really the prophet’, because it was expected that the prophet like Moses would repeat the miracle of the dispensing of water at Horeb: and if we adopt the reading of P66 in John 7.52 (as. in our view, we should) then what is contested is that the eschatological prophet (like Moses) will come from Galilee. After the miracle of the loaves it is said, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’ (6.14), for what has been experienced is reminiscent of the miracle of the manna. In connection with this verse it should be noted that ho erchomenos is exactly the same expression as used in the Baptist’s question to Jesus: ‘Are voui he who is to come (ho erchomenos)?’ (Matt. 11.3, Luke 7.19) …this suggests that ho erchomenos had titular significance, possibly designation Messiah (cf. the LXX and Targumic interpretations of Gen. 49.10, and the Jewish interpretation of Hab. 2.3), but more probably a designation of the expected eschatological prophet. 110

7. The Word of God

John 1:1 presents Jesus as the ‘Word’. The context makes it clear that this means the divine Word, to the point that the Word is said to be God – ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ This is not a self-designation of Jesus, but rather a description employed by John of Jesus, though such depiction entirely agrees with Jesus’ own presentation of Himself as the ultimate revelation of God. Ladd states that John used it because it was ‘a term widely known in both the Hellenistic and the Jewish worlds in the interests of setting forth the significance of Christ.’ 111Ladd notes that Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus (6th century BC) and the Stoics employed the concept of the Logos. The Alexandrian Jew Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 42) used the concept as a bridge between the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds. 112

For Philo, the Logos is the first-born son of God – protogonov ‘uiovprotogonos huios – to the extent that he even calls the Logos a ‘second god’ – deuterovyeovdeuteros theos. Guthrie observes other interesting aspects of Philo’s concept:

1. The logos has no distinct personality. It is described as ‘the image of God… through whom the whole universe was framed’. But since it is also described in terms of a rudder to guide all things in their course, or as God’s instrument (organon) for fashioning the world, it seems clear that Philo did not think of logos in personal terms.

2. Philo speaks of the logos as God’s first-born son protogonos which implies pre-existence. The logos is certainly regarded as eternal. Other descriptions of the logos as God’s ambassador (presbeutēs), as man’s advocate paraklētos) and as high priest (archiereus), although offering interesting parallels with Jesus Christ, do not, however, require pre-existence.

3. The logos idea is not linked with light and life in Philo’s doctrine as it is in John’s…

4. There is no suggestion that the logos could become incarnate. This would have been alien to Greek thought, because of the belief in the evil of matter.

5. The logos definitely had a mediatorial function to bridge the gap between the transcendent God and the world. It can be regarded as a personification of an effective intermediary, although it was never personalized. Philo’s logos has, therefore, both parallels and differences from John’s logos… 113

However, Ladd observes that ‘Philo’s Logos concept is employed in the interests of a dualistic cosmology that removes God from immediate contact with creation, whereas John uses the Logos concept to bring God in Christ directly into his creation.’ 114 Neither is the Logos personally distinct in this conception, and it should be remembered that Hellenistic thought regarded matter as evil, so the Johannine concept of incarnation would be foreign to Philo, as well as to Greek philosophy in general. Fuller observes that the Gospel Logos doctrine ‘is not derived from the Greek philosophical tradition. The Logos of Heraclitus and the Stoics was the immanent principle of law and order in the universe, whereas the Logos of the prologue [of John] is a transcendent being who comes into this world from outside.’ 115 Nonetheless, the existence of the Philonic Logos shows that there was a tradition of the personified (though not personalised) Logos in Judaism. The Christian concept was neither arbitrary nor contrived.

This becomes more explicit when we consider the Old Testament background to the Logos. The Hebrew term for ‘word’ is rb1d1 dabar. The great Old Testament scholar, Professor Edmond Jacob of Strasbourg University, observed ‘That God reveals himself by his word is a truth confirmed by every one of the Old Testament books. It is by his word that he reveals himself as the living God…’ 116 He notes that the term has a ‘dynamic’ quality:

This dynamic quality of the word already appears in the names by which it is denoted. The most usual term and the one which has become classical for the word is dabar, which must probably be associated with a root which in Hebrew has the meaning of: to be behind and to push; dabar could then be defined as the projection forward of what lies behind, that is to say, the transition into the act of what is at first in the heart. The realistic character of dabar is always strongly stressed, so that the term will denote thing as well as word (Gen. 20.10; 22.1, 20; 40.1; 48.1 etc.) and no term throws into clearer relief the fact that the Hebrew mind did not distinguish between thought and action. Realism and dynamism are features equally characteristic of the root ‘amar; derived from a root having the sense to be raised up or to be clear, the word would be the visible manifestation of the thought and of the will. In distinction from dabar, the stress with ‘amar is chiefly upon the spoken word; the expression lemor which introduces speeches is generally preceded by dabar (wayedabber lemor) which alone possesses creative dynamism. 117

This dynamism is realised in the creative power of the divine word. The obvious texts that relate to this are Genesis 1:3ff, Psalms 33:6, 9 and 47:15ff. It was by His word that God created the universe. Guthrie observes that there is a corollary to this creative aspect of the divine word:

But not only is the Word creative: it is also sustaining. Such passages as Psalm 147:15-18; 148:8 show God’s providential care for his creation through his powerful Word. Indeed that Word is so powerful that it cannot fail to accomplish its purpose in the world (Is. 55:11; Ps. 147:15). Moreover, judgment is executed by the Word of God (Ho. 6:5). In these senses the Word of God is seen as the powerful agency of God. 118

Immediately, we can see parallels with the Logos concept in the Gospel of John. Jesus was the Word that created the cosmos – John 1:3 – ‘All things were made through him; and without him nothing was made that has been made.’ Jesus definitely accomplished the divine commission – 17:4 ‘I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do’; in 19:30 He exclaims from the cross tetelestai ‘It is finished’. It is worth noting that what Isaiah 55:11 asserts about the word of God (‘So shall my word be that goes forth from My mouth: it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish what I desire, and it shall succeed in the matter for which I sent it’) may provide the background to the Johannine motif of Jesus coming from, and going to God. 119 Jesus is also the Agent of divine judgment – 5:22. We also encounter Jesus as the Judge in the Synoptic gospels, e.g. Matthew 25:31ff.

We earlier noted the emphasis in the Gospel of John upon the revelatory nature of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus reveals the Father, 1:18; 17:26. His miracles are called ‘signs’; even His death is revelatory. In this respect, the concept of the Logosideally fits the nature and ministry of Jesus. Both Islam and the Bible hold that God is incomprehensible apart from His self-revelation. The only totally adequate revealer of God is God Himself, who can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite – John 1:14 – ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us’.

In this respect Jesus reveals the nature of God in terms of His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2 – ‘God has in these last days spoken by His Son’. To encounter Jesus is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation – ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’, John 14:9. However, the bodily revelation of Jesus is itself not the completion of the divine revelation, because He is not eternally bodily present on the earth, and because the transformation He works is not complete apart from the divine indwelling, which is effected by the Holy Spirit. Since all three persons share the same essence of deity, whenever the Spirit indwells a person, the latter has experienced the inward revelation of the Triune God. The revelation of God was effected by the Word entering the human scene by dwelling among us; ultimately, this is secured by His dwelling within us – John 14:16-20 – the triune God, through the Holy Spirit, dwells within everyone born of the Spirit.

The Father reveals the Son by sending Him, the Son reveals the Father by His presence and work, (Matthew 11:27), the Spirit reveals the Son and thus the Father by applying this work with His presence. Revelation points to the Triune nature of God. We know what God is like when we experience the Father, by the Holy Spirit, revealing the Son in our lives. This revelation is in conformity to the way God made men – as beings capable of intelligent relationship, especially love. Man is made in God’s image, and is social – made for relationship and fellowship. The expression of divine love and desire for fellowship is effected through divine revelation. The theanthropic Person of Jesus is the climactic expression of revelation in that in a unique way, God comes to Man. The perfect Man who is also God can express in human terms the mind of the Creator.

We have noted earlier that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Law – the Torah. Indeed, he specifically fulfils the Davidic covenant of the Torah for Humanity. It is noteworthy that the Ten Commandments are actually entitled the dabarim of the LORD.Jacob notes that in Judaism, the authority of the dabarim ‘became merged with that of God himself.’ 120 Indeed, Morris observes that in some Targums, ‘the Word’ (represented in the Targums by the technical phrase Memra’, equivalent to Biblical Hebrew ‘amar, a synonym for dabar) is employed as a periphrasis for God, and that in a Genesis Targum, the First Couple heard ‘the voice of the Word of God’ walking in the Garden, Genesis 3:8. 121 The structure and wording of John 1:1 very obviously reflects Genesis 1:1, so, in the light of Targumic usage, when we read in v14 that the Word became flesh, we can understand that the Gospel is not being arbitrary or contrived in presenting the Word as God; the distinctive element is that the divine Word was incarnated.

This is strengthened by links between the divine Name YHWH and Memra’. C. T. R. Hayward, suggests that Memra’ directly represented the name which God Himself revealed to Moses from the burning bush, YHWH (or ‘HYH, vocalised as ‘ehyeh), translated as I AM/WILL BE THERE (cf. Exodus 3:14b, ‘Say to the people of Israel: I AM THERE: (‘ehyeh) has sent me unto you.’). He notes that Codex Neofiti I in the Palestinian Targum renders Exodus 3:12 (‘And He said For I will be there (‘ehyeh) with you, rm( hyh) yk…’) as ‘And he said: For I will be there, My Memra’ with you, rm( yrmm ywwh) swr)…’ Other Targums read, ‘And He said: For My Memra’ will be for your support…’ 122 Hayward suggests that this employment of Memra’ as representing the Name ‘HYH was the original usage of the term, and only when this original meaning had been lost, did it come to be used as a replacement of YHWH. The expression ‘Name of the Memra’ of YYY‘ (‘YYY’ being a Targumic representation of the ‘Tetragrammaton‘ – YHWH), frequent in Codex Neofiti, ‘reveals that the spheres of meaning and content’ of Memra’ and YHWH ‘are not coterminous. Memra is not a replacement for YHWH.’ He infers from this that Memra’ is ‘God’s Name’ ‘HYH which by midrashic exposition refers to His presence in past and future creation, history and redemption. Memra’ is God’s mercy, by which the world is created and sustained.’ Hayward applies this perception to John’s use of logov and concludes:

St, John may have presented Jesus as the Memra’, the revealer of God’s merciful, active presence in creation, redemption, and covenant, as having come in flesh to tabernacle among men. Jesus personifies God’s ‘HYH, the living proof that the God revealed to Moses at the bush is with His people … As Memra’, Jesus would represent God’s ‘HYH the self-naming of God, one with God kai Yeov ‘hn ‘ologov …Jesus has manifested God’s Name to men, according to John 17:6. St. John, then, if our hypothesis be correct, depicts Jesus as the Memra’, who is God’s Name, manifesting God’s glory, full of the grace and truth of the covenant, dwelling with us in the flesh, which Jesus himself describes as a Temple (2.19), the very dwelling place of the Memra’ … if the Memra’s effect on the prologue is left out of account, an essential element of the Logos-doctrine will have been passed over in silence.’ 123

It should be noted that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan II on Exodus 3:14 reads ‘And the Memra’ of the LORD said to Moses…’ Where this becomes particularly relevant for the debate with Islam is the relationship between Logos and the ‘I AM’ sayings of Jesus. John 8:58, of course, clearly affirms the pre-existence of Jesus, and given the crowd’s reaction of attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy, it is clear that they understood Him as claiming deity. Granted that Jesus does not explicitly proclaim Himself as Logos, the fact is that He does employ egw eimi ego eimi of Himself, as in 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 58; 13:19; 18:5. Given that ‘the Word’ had become a representation of the divine Name YHWH, it can be observed that John’s usage was effectively reflecting Jesus’ own assertion of His identity as YHWH.

Similarly, H. Mowvley has suggested Exodus 33:7ff as a background to John’s use of Logos. The Tent of Meeting was where God used to speak to Moses, and ‘… just as Moses met God and heard his word in the Tent of Meeting, so men may now meet him and hear him in the flesh of Jesus.’ Behind John’s use of ‘eskhnwsen in 1:14, Mowvley sees reference to the Tent of Meeting in Exodus 33. Similarly the reference to his glory recalls the reference to the shining of Moses face (LXX dedoxastai‘h ‘oqiv tou crwmatov tou proswpou ‘autou) when he went in before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. 124 The Biblical scholar M. D. Hooker sees the Prologue as concerned with the exegesis of the Divine Name and having a background in Exodus 33-34. 125 Ladd observes that ‘eskhnwsen ‘is a biblical metaphor for God’s presence.’ 126

With regard to the Palestinian Targum, represented by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Codex Neofiti I, Martin McNamara has noted the Palestinian Targum’s treatment of Numbers 7:89, a passage relating to the same matter as Exodus 33:7ff. The Hebrew Text of Numbers 7:89 reads, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the Voice speaking with him from above the mercy-seat that was on the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and he spoke with him.’ Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan reads thus, ‘And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he heard the Voice of the Spirit that conversed with when it descended from the highest heavens above the mercy-seat above the ark of the testimony from between the two cherubim and from there the Word (Aramaic dibbēra’) conversed with him.’

Codex Neofiti I uses dibbēra’ twice in its paraphrase, ‘And when Moses used to go in to the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he used to hear the Voice of the Word speaking with him … from there the Word used to speak with him.’ In similar fashion, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrases Exodus 33:11, ‘Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend’, as follows ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses, speech to speech. He used to hear the Voice of the Word (dibbēra’) but the Glory of the countenance he used not to see, as a man speaks with his friend. And after the Voice of the Word had ascended, he returned to the camp and related the words to the congregation of Israel.’ 127 Again, we can see how the term ‘the Word of God’ was a synonym for YHWH Himself.

John’s employment of the term Logos also adequately conveyed a major emphasis of the Gospel we have already considered – the emphasis on Jesus’ ministry, including His death, as revelatory. In Exodus 3:14 God revealed Himself to Moses, specifically with a redemptive aim – to liberate the people of God from their demonic oppressors. We must remember that the conflict between YHWH (through Moses) and Pharaoh is presented as a cosmological conflict between YHWH and the false gods of Egypt – the demonic powers of darkness – Exodus 12:12. When YHWH brought the plagues upon the Egyptians, He demonstrated His superiority over the nature-gods of Egypt. When the Angel of death takes the life of every Egyptian first-born son not covered by the blood of the lamb, YHWH demonstrates His power over the living god of Egypt, Pharaoh. The deliverance from Egypt is presented as ‘redemption’ – Exodus 6:6, one that involves judgment. Equally, the redemption the Logos effects is a judgment against the demonic forces, John 12:31, whereby Jesus delivers people from the grasp of Satan. Just as the Exodus event was a revelation to Israel and the Egyptians, Exodus 6:7; 7:5, the death of Christ is both revelatory and redemptive, as well as being a judgment – John 8:28 ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am (‘egw ‘eimi)’.

Guthrie comments on the relationship between the revelatory and legal characteristics of the dabarim:

Yet the more frequent idea of the Word in the OT is as the means of revelation. In the work and writings of the prophets, the expression ‘Thus says the Lord’ or similar words abound. Each prophet was conscious of being the mouthpiece of God… A development from this prophetical idea is when the ‘Word’ came to sum up the whole message of God to man as in Psalm 119:9, 105. It is virtually identified with the law, but the important feature is the emphasis on the divine revelation in its application to the psalmist’s way of life. 128

This becomes very pertinent to the Gospel of John when we consider tendencies within Judaism to regard the Torah as the pre-existent ‘first-born of God’, as God’s intermediary, Agent of creation, and means of spiritual life – the latter especially pertinent, since the Gospel asserts of Jesus in 1:4 that ‘In him was life; and the life was the light of men.’ We can see how this personification prepared the way for the incarnation, and how this explains the background of the Johannine concept, proving that it was not a contrived innovation:

The third Jewish source which has sometimes been appealed to is the rabbinic idea of the Torah,which was regarded as an intermediary between God and the world. There are several parallels between this and the Logos of John’s prologue.

First, the Torah was believed to have been created before the foundation of the world; in other words, its pre-existence is asserted. Secondly, the Torah lay on God’s bosom. Thirdly, ‘my daughter, she is the Torah.’ Fourthly, through the first-born, God created the heaven and the earth, and the first-born is no other than the Torah. Fifthly, the words of the Torah are life for the world.

In John’s prologue, however, the superiority of Jesus Christ, as the divine Logos, to Moses the law-giver is expressly brought out (Jn. 1:17). Moreover, whereas the law was ‘given’ through Moses, ‘grace and truth’ the distinguishing marks of the new law, ‘came through Jesus Christ’. In other words John’s assertions go beyond the assertions of the rabbis. Jesus more than fulfilled the function of the pre-existent Torah. 129

Indeed, the concept of the dabar in general was, in the progressive revelation of God, undergoing a personification that approached personalisation. Jacob observes this tendency:

The other attempt at crystallization appears in the tendencies towards making an hypostasis of the word. Although it is impossible to speak of an hypostasis of the word in the canonical hooks of the Old Testament, it must he recognized that many of the affirmations point in that direction. To speak of the word as a reality which. falls and which unlooses catastrophe (Is. 9.7), or as a devouring fire (Jer. 5.14; 20.8; 23.29), or as a reality which is present with someone like one person with another (2 Kings 3.12), is to look upon it less as an effect than as an active subject akin to the angel or the face of Yahweh. The same hypostatic function of the word, which receives its full development in the pseudepigrapha, has its roots in the Old Testament without any need to admit foreign influences. The tendency to hypostatize was more obvious in the case of wisdom than of the word, but it is the latter which provided a foundation for the theology of wisdom. 130

From all of this, we can understand what was involved in the Logos concept. Essentially, YHWH – the Word – became incarnate, John 1:14, to reveal Himself and redeem sinners. Moreover, the aim of the incarnation, revelation and redemption was similar to that of the Exodus – to bring Man into a spiritual relationship with God, one by which Man would enjoy personal knowledge of God through Jesus, John 10:14ff. 38. Because of the Incarnation, and through the reception of the Holy Spirit, human beings can know God, because in the person of Christ God has revealed Himself – His person, John 1:18, not just His will. Islam, by contrast, cannot wholly address this issue. Sunni Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which is almost a part of God – His Speech in fact. The purported revelation of Qur’an, according to Sunnis, is virtually equivalent to the Incarnation in Christianity, only that in the case of Islam, the Word became a Book, rather than flesh. In Islam, God reveals His will, not His person. Thus a Muslim, even if he memorises the Qur’an, never enters into an intimate, supernatural relationship with the person of God. Rather, he merely attempts to obey the divine precepts.

Moreover, as any Muslim will affirm, the Qur’an only truly exists when untranslated; that is, it is only really the Qur’an when it is in Arabic. The language of the Qur’an is an essential part of the revelation – S. 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:44; 42:7; 43:30. Thus, despite its claim to be ‘mercy for mankind’, the Qur’an is contextually limited by time and space, especially in terms of accessibility. There is not the same revelatory action of interaction between God and Man, especially since the Qur’an is effectively limited to those who know Arabic. Jesus, however, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is universally accessible, whatever the language or ethnic group, and this is demonstrated by His easy movement from Aramaic to Greek when He deals with Gentiles like the Centurion, and through the Spirit He still speaks to people of any language. The Word became Man, not specifically Meccan/Quraish (or any other language).

8. Priest

In the Old Testament the functions of Priest and King were rigidly separated, the former being reserved to the tribe of Levi, the latter to Judah, cf. 1 Samuel 13; 2 Chronicles 26:16ff. Clearly, Jesus, in order to be the Davidic King, had to spring from Judah, yet in order to offer sacrifice, He had to be a priest. Moreover, He had to be an eternal priest – Zechariah 6:12-13 states that the Messiah, who will build the Temple, will be a priest on his throne, uniting the two offices – ’12 …Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD; 13 Indeed, He will build the temple of the LORD; and He will bear the glory, and will sit and rule upon His throne; and He will be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”‘

We can see from this that the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as simultaneously a priest and king was not arbitrary or innovative, but rather a question of fulfilled prophecy. Before going further, we should note the following:

1. In contrast to the Prophet, the Priest is Man’s representative to God.

2. He has to be appointed by God – Hebrews 5:4, cf. 7:28.

3. He offers sacrifice – 7:27.

4. He blesses the people – Leviticus 9:22; cf. Luke 24:50-51.

5. He makes intercession for them – Hebrews 7:25.

6. The priestly ministry of Jesus does not depend upon ancestry, but life – v16.

7. Unlike the Aaronic, His is an eternal ministry – vs. 3, 8, 17, 21, 24-25, 28.

8. His ministry – i.e. the once-for-all sacrifice, v27, effects ‘perfection’ i.e. what Paul terms justification, which contrasts with the imperfect Levitical order – v11.

9. Based on Psalm 110:4, Jesus’ ministry is a royal priesthood – Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17.

The last-mentioned is crucial: Psalm 110 is the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. 131 We have seen its usage at the trial of Jesus before the High Priest, where in answer to whether Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, He responds ‘I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’, Mark 14:61-62. This conflates Daniel 7:13ff with Psalm 110:1 – Jesus will sit at the right hand of God, i.e. enjoy the place of authority. We encounter the idea of the glorified Son of Man in Mark 13:26, in the Eschatological Discourse foretelling the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Hence, the sign of the heavenly Son of Man is in juxtaposition to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and thus to the end of the sacrificial system of Judaism. This conclusion of the Jewish sacrificial cultus is also a theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8:13.

The important point is that the ministry of the priestly order of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. Hebrews 7:6-8 points to Melchizedek, the Jebusite Priest-King of Salem, who received tithes from Abraham and blessed him, Genesis 14:18ff. The argument of the epistle is that Jesus derives His office from this priesthood – 7:17. Because Levi, in the loins of his ancestor, was blessed by Melchizedek, the latter priesthood is superior to the former, v9. Centuries after the incident with Abraham, Jerusalem, the city of Melchizedek, was conquered by David. As Bruce writes,

David thus became successor to the dynasty of which Melchizedek was the most illustrious representative. David belonged to the tribe of Judah, and so, therefore, did his descendant the Messiah, ‘great David’s greater Son’. There was therefore complete appropriateness in identifying Christ, of the tribe of Judah, with the one acclaimed by the divine oath as ‘a priest for ever after the order of Meichizedek’. And part of the argument of the letter to the Hebrews is designed to show that the priest of Melchizedek’s order is greater in every way than a priest of Aaron’s line. 132

Hence, the claim that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek is sound. Muslims might object that Jesus Himself does not use the self-designation of ‘priest’, but the fact is that He does employ the motif of Psalm 110 and apply it to Himself, indicating that He did see Himself as the Messianic priest-king after the order of Melchizedek. Moreover, inasmuch as He conflated the ministry of Isaianic Servant with that of the Son of Man and Messiah, He claimed a priestly ministry, the most obvious example being Mark 10:45. He had come to make a sacrificial offering to God on behalf of the people. Furthermore, He had been sent to do so by God the Father – John 3:16-17. We noted earlier the concept of shaliach/apostolos, and that, as we observed previously, one of the rabbinic titles for the High Priest was ‘the envoy, the shaliach, the apostolos, of the Merciful.’ The idea that Jesus was sent to perform a priestly ministry entirely agrees with this concept.

What is especially distinctive about the sacrifice Jesus offers is that unlike the Aaronic High Priest, He does not offer an animal, nor have to do this annually, and neither need He offer a sacrifice for Himself. Rather, He is Himself the sinless offering for the sins of the people. We have previously noted the connotations of the ‘Shepherd’ concept, but for our purpose here, we need only consider John 10:11 – ‘I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’ The Messianic priest-king had come to sacrifice Himself for the sake of His sheep. We should also remember Mark 12:36-37, which quotes Psalm 110:1, and points to the deity of Jesus. The ‘Shepherd’ title was used of both God and the King. This points to a difference between the God of Islam and the God of the Bible. The former is depicted as demanding that His worshippers be ready to sacrifice their lives for Him; the latter is revealed as the God who takes human nature to die for human beings, specifically for sinners.

When Abraham was to sacrifice his son, he said ‘God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering’. God indeed does precisely that, substituting a ram for Isaac – v13. The Binding of Isaac became known as the ‘Akedah. The daily sacrifice of a lamb in the Jerusalem temple was termed the Tamîd.The Midrash Leviticus Rabbah connects the Passover with the ‘Akedah– ‘When I see the blood of the Paschal Lamb… I will remember the blood of the ‘Akedah.‘ The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 22, states ‘And now I pray for mercies before Thee, O Lord God that when the children of Israel offer in the hour of their need the Binding of Isaac, their father, Thou mayest remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all their need.’ Of course, the Passover lamb recalled the deliverance from Egypt, whereby the wrath of God did not fall upon those protected by the blood of the lamb. Guthrie asserts that the paschal lamb was intended as a sin-atonement, and draws attention to Pesahim 10:6 in this regard. 133

When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming to be baptised, He exclaimed ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’, John 1:29, cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19. Although the Baptist’s designation would draw on the cultic sacrifices we have examined, and thereby present Jesus as the priestly offering, it should also be noted that ‘the Lamb of God’ is also an allusion to the Servant in Isaiah 53:7 – ‘as a lamb that is led to the slaughter…’ Philip the deacon explains this passage as referring to Jesus in his encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:32ff. Guthrie observes that Isaiah 53:12 refers to the Servant bearing ‘the sins of many’ i.e. ‘all’ – which is the same as saying He bore the sins of the world. 134 Ladd observes that the Aramaic word talya may be translated as either ‘lamb’ or ‘boy, servant’. 135 There would appear to be a conflation of these closely-related concepts to underline that Jesus is the High priest who offers Himself for the life of the world. This is demonstrated by another passage in which Jesus stresses His heavenly origins, and that He came to die so that others might have eternal life – John 6:51 ‘I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ That this was a priestly action is confirmed by John 10:15-18 – Jesus freely lay down His life for His sheep.

9. Saviour

This term in many ways sums up what has gone before. It has already been noted that Jesus means ‘YHWH saves’. Luke 2:11 presents Jesus as ‘Saviour’. The term is richer in meaning than is often appreciated. The Gospel of Luke has a strong emphasis on the restoration of the Kingdom, and of its liberating nature – 21:28, 31. In the Old Testament, the Judges have the title yasha – ‘saviours’, Judges 3:9, 15. The Septuagint terms Othniel and Ehud as soter – Greek for ‘saviour’, a title also given them by Nehemiah 9:27 – ‘en oiktirmoiv sou toiv megaloiv ‘edwkav ‘autoiv swthrav kai ‘eswsav ‘autouv ‘ek ceirov ylibontwn‘autouv. The context makes it clear that the deliverance involved is political/military liberation from alien oppression.

1. The same thought is apparent in Luke – note the liberation motif in 1:68-71, 2:30, and 3:6 – the idea of being rescued from ones enemies. Cf. 1 Samuel 11:13; 14:45; 19:4.

2. ‘Saviours’ are characterised by charismatic endowment by the Spirit – ‘The typical charismatic figures …are all heroes, most of them military leaders, who deliver Israel from its foes.’ 136 Jesus was likewise endowed with the Spirit – Luke 3:22; 4:18. Immediately upon being so-endued, He was deliberately impelled by the Spirit to enter the desert to combat Satan.

3. The saviour by His act wrought liberty and unity; the New Testament sees this in universal terms – John 4:42 – ‘Saviour of the World’, cf. Luke 2:31-32. His action unites Jew and Gentile – John 11:50-52. In this respect, Jesus is the ultimate and anti-typical Saviour – the ‘saviours’ of the Old testament typified His ministry. This provides a connection with the ministry of the Servant.

4. John 12:31-33 sees the Cross as a military engagement against Satan. Salvation is also from sin, Psalm 51:14; and from death, Hebrews 5:7. These are our foes.

5. God is Saviour – Psalms 24:5; 18.45:15,21; Luke 1:47; Titus 3:4, etc. Jesus is the Ultimate Saviour because He is divine.

6. The dramatic nature of salvation is seen in John 19:18, which we examined earlier – the crucifixion of Jesus is described as ‘enteuyen kai ‘enteuyen enteuthen kai enteuthen ‘one on either side’, an allusion to Exodus 17:12 LXX. John 19:18 is thus presenting Jesus as the new Moses, who saves His People by being crucified, therein destroying the enemy – Satan.

B. The Islamic view

1. ‘Isa bin Maryam

It is uncertain how the term ‘Isa emerged. The usual idea is that it derived from the Syriac Yeshū, which in turn derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua. 137 Normally, Arab Christians normally refer to Jesus as Yasu. In Christ in Islam, Ahmed Deedat makes a tremendous faux-pas about the origins of the name ‘Isa: ‘Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus.’ 138 In fact, Yeshua(0#$2334^w&hy” in the Old Testament is normally translated ‘Joshua’; ‘Esau’ r#51(9 means ‘rough’. The names have no connection with each other. The Greek for ‘Joshua’ is ‘ihsouv ‘iēsous, and this is not only used in the New Testament with regard to the Messiah, but is also used of Joshua the conqueror of Canaan and Joshua the High Priest (among others) in the Septuagint, e.g. Joshua 1:10′kai ‘eneteilato ‘ihsouv toiv grammateusin tou laou legwn‘ Zechariah 3:3’kai ‘ihsouv ‘hn‘endedumenov ‘imatia rupara kai ‘eisthkei pro proswpou tou ‘aggelou‘ Hence, since the Greek form is ‘ihsouv the ‘Latinised’ form to which Deedat objects is no arbitrary innovation of either the so-called ‘Christian nations’ or even the actual Christians themselves.

Deedat further compounds his incompetence by stating that ‘The word is very simply “ESAU” a very common Jewish name used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”‘. In fact, it is only ever used of the brother of Jacob, which rather undermines Deedat’s assertions. Every reference in Genesis is to this individual. In Christ in Islam and Christianity, Gilchrist comments on Deedat’s blunder on this issue:

The Jews just simply did not call their children by this name. Jacob and Esau were enemies for most of their lives and their descendants, the Israelites and the Edomites, were often at war with each other. No Jewish children were ever named after the brother of Jacob, the father of the Israelites, for he stood against Jacob and was rejected by God (Hebrews 12:17). It is thus a fallacy to suggest that the original name of Jesus was Esau. 139

Zwemer considers the theory of one Dr Otto Pautz that ‘Isa did indeed derive from Esau, because the Jews in Medina caricatured Jesus in this way, although Zwemer rightly is guarded about this speculative hypothesis. 140Gilchrist finds this theory attractive:

For reasons that have never been apparent Muhammad chose to call him Isa. Deedat’s interpretation of this name as “Esau” tends to lend support to the suggestion made by some that the Jews in Arabic cunningly misled Muhammad by subtly perverting the true name of Jesus into the name of their forefather’s irreligious brother. If Deedat’s conclusion is correct, it militates heavily against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an.

There can be no doubt, however, that Esau is no nearer to the original and true name of Jesus than Muhammad’s Isa. This fundamental error sets the tone for the whole of Deedat’s treatment of the contrast between Christ in Islam and Christianity and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Jesus of the Bible, rather than the Isa of the Qur’an, is the true Jesus. 141

Cotterell also notes this theory that ‘the Jews referred contemptuously to Jesus as ‘Isā because of the obvious near-homophony with Esau (Hebrew ‘Esā), the despised brother of Jacob… Nöldeke suggest that Muhammad adopted the name in good faith, unaware of the pejorative overtones.’ 142 This would be in keeping with the Qur’an’s borrowing from a mixture of Jewish and Christian canonical and apocryphal sources. Another theory noted by Zwemer is that ‘Isā was probably formed to rhyme with Moses – Musa. 143 The Qur’an is indeed fond of such rhyming techniques. The difficulty, as Zwemer observes, is that ‘Isā is used in five cases of conjunction with Musa. However, Zwemer’s objection is not insurmountable. Rhythmic considerations may well have been the original impetus for its usage, and thereafter the name simply continued to be used elsewhere. It would be interesting to know what name the Arab Christians of Najran used for Jesus. Significantly, a Christian inscription to Rahman has been found in Yemen, and Muslims also employ this term for Allah. Perhaps archaeology may eventually be able to assist in this question.

The term ‘son of Mary’ does not exist as a title in the Bible, but only once as a description – Mark 6:3 ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon?’ The reference to Jesus as the ‘brother’ of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon demonstrates that the usage is not titular. With regard to its Qur’anic usage, the term is used both as a proper name and as a title in Islam. An example of its titular usage in the Qur’an is found in Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:57 ‘When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!’ In the hadith, there seems to be greater emphasis on its titular employment, e.g.:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?

Zwemer notes that in the twenty-five places where ‘Isā is used, in sixteen He is called the Son of Mary. 144 It has been frequently observed that much of what Islam asserts about Jesus is negatory in character, informing us much more about what He is not than what He is. With respect to the Incarnation, Islam denies the deity of Christ:

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:116116 They say: ‘Allah hath begotten a son’; Glory be to Him. Nay to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth; everything renders worship to Him.

Surah An-Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him…

The term ‘Son of Mary’ is not actually explained in the Qur’an or Hadith, but it appears to be related to the Islamic dogma of the virgin birth, as well as a polemical denial of the eternal divine sonship of Jesus. Yusuf Ali makes this suggestion:

401 …Jesus is no more than a man. It is against reason and revelation to call him Allah or the son of Allah. He is called the son of Mary to emphasize this. He had no human father, as his birth was miraculous. But it is not this which raise him to his high position as a prophet, but because Allah called him to his office. The praise is due to Allah, Who by His word gave him spiritual strength-“strengthened him with the Holy spirit. The miracles which surround his story relate not only to the “Clear Signs” which he brought. It was those who misunderstood him who obscured his clear Signs and surrounded him with mysteries of their own invention.(3.62)

Cotterell also examines a possible Ethiopian origin for the term, but finds the evidence inadequate:

The suggestion that the title ‘Son of Mary’ originated in Abyssinia, and indicated a high view of Mary rather than a low view of Jesus, fails at two points. Firstly, it is supposed that the title was brought back from Abyssinia by returning Muslim refugees, after the first hijra. However, the title occurs in Meccan Suras, decisively in Sura 19 which, according to tradition, was recited to the Abyssinian Nagash (Eth. negūs, ‘king’) by the refugees. Secondly there is no evidence that the title ‘Son of Mary’ was used by the Abyssinian church: it does not appear in the Ethiopic Qiddase. In any event the use of the title by the Abyssinian church is highly unlikely since its strong monophysite position ensured that the deity of Christ all but eclipsed his humanity. 145

In the Arabic Infancy pseudo-gospel, ‘Son of Mary’ is used of Jesus a few times, (although not necessarily in a titular sense, save possibly when Satan addresses Him in v34). This may be the source of the term in the Qur’an, especially since this apocryphal work presents Jesus as speaking in the cradle. This is an attractive proposition since the work has a high Mariology, referring to the mother of Jesus as ‘Lady Mary’. For example, in v3, the following is said of her ‘Thou art not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women.’ Islam appears to give a higher status to Mary than does the Bible. Surah 21:91 presents the virgin birth as being as much about Mary as it is about Jesus. They are jointly held to be a sign from Allah:

Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.Surah An-Muminun 23:50And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.

The elevation of Mary herself to being a sign is perhaps an attempt to compensate for any pressing need for Jesus to be born of a virgin. This remains a major failing inadequacy of Islamic polemics – its failure to explain why Jesus had to be virgin-born. Yusuf Ali comments about this verse (21:91):

The virgin birth of Jesus was a miracle both for him and his mother. She was falsely accused of unchastity, but the child Jesus triumphantly vindicated her by his own miracles (xix. 27-33), and showed by his life the meanness of the calumny against his mother.

If the Infancy pseudo-gospel was indeed the source for this title, then whoever authored the Qur’an engaged in the most deliberate editing of a text to fit his/their presuppositions, since the text begins with the affirmation ‘In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God’ and as soon as Jesus is born, He speaks, saying ‘I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.‘ The absence of any canonical background for the titular use of ‘Son of Mary’ demonstrates the contrived nature of the term, in contrast to the firm basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition for the titles of Jesus. Clearly, the historical Jesus is the Biblical one.

2. A Prophet/Apostle

The Qur’an presents Jesus both a prophet and an apostle:

Surah Maryam 19:30He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet…Surah Nisaa 4:171171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah…

According to Islam, Allah has sent messengers/apostles to every people. Every apostle (rasul) is a prophet (nabi) but not every prophet was an apostle. Surah Yunus 10:48 states that every nation has received a messenger. Islamic fiqh says the following about messengers:

AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)

MESSENGERS AND MUHAMMAD

He sent Messengers to mankind to establish a plea against them. He completed their mission, admonition and prophethood with His prophet Muhammad – may Allah be pleased with him and please him – whom he made the last of the Messengers, giving glad tidings, warning and calling people to Allah, with His permission. The Prophet was an illuminating lamp and Allah revealed to him His book, which is full of wisdom. He explained through it His true religion and guided by it along the right path.

With regard to the distinction between prophets and apostles, the comments of Yusuf Ali on S. 19:51 are helpful:

Moses was (1) especially chosen, and therefore prepared and instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, in order that he might free his people from Egyptian bondage; there may also be a reference to Moses’s title of Kalimullah, the one to whom prophet (nabi), in that he received inspiration; and (3) he was a messenger (rasul) in that he had a Book of Revelation, and an Ummat or organised Community, for which he instituted laws.

Zwemer comments on the distinction as follows:

The number of prophets and apostles sent by God, according to Moslem teaching, amounts to 124,000. Others say 240,000, and others 100,000. These statements show that the words, prophet and apostle, in Moslem usage have not the same dignity, which we infer from their usage in the Old and New Testaments. Three hundred and thirteen are said to have been apostles who came with a special mission. A prophet, according to Moslem teaching, is a man inspired by God, but not sent with a special dispensation or book; while an apostle is one who comes either with a special dispensation or to whom a special book has been revealed. All apostles are prophets, but not all prophets are apostles. Jesus was both. 146

The Muslim author Suzanne Haneef appears to agree with this. She defines a prophet as one receiving divine revelations ‘…which constitute a source of guidance for men. If the revelation is in the form of a written scripture, the prophet is in addition a “messenger” (rasul) as well.’ 147 In the same passage she rejects predictive activity as part of the definition of prophethood. Vos defines the activity of the Biblical prophet (Hebrew nabhi) as ‘an authorized spokesman for the Deity’, in whose word ‘a divinely-communicated power resides.’ 148 This is the same as saying that a prophet was inspired by the Spirit of YHWH. Abraham is said to be a prophet, Genesis 20:17 and 2 Kings 16:13ff defines prophets as those servants of YHWH who attempt to restore the people to the covenant-law.

However, it is quite clear from the Old Testament that there was a predictive element, and from what we have seen earlier, much of this concerned the Messianic Age. Whilst there is some affinity between the Biblical and Islamic concepts of prophethood, the concept of apostleship held by Islam does not exactly correspond to the Biblical usage of the term, as can be inferred from what is said of the apostolic commission of Jesus. The Shaliach concept is rather different from the Muslim idea, and one suspects Muslims would find the notion objectionable. This in itself allows us to say that the Islamic concept of apostleship lacks Biblical and Jewish traditional background, being simply an innovation by Muslims.

As to the question of the prophetic message of Jesus, Muslims hold that He came to confirm the Shari’ah, the same legal-code revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Islamic exegete Mawdudi comments:

…Jesus did not bring any new religion but followed the same way that was followed by all the Prophets before him and invited people to the same. He believed in what was intact in his time from among the original teaching of the Torah. The Injil also testifies the same (Matthew 5:17, 18 ). The Qur’an reiterates this fact over and over again that each and every Prophets who was set by Allah to any part of the world, confirmed the message of all the Prophets who had gone before him and exerted his utmost to complete the work which they had left as the holy heritage, for he did not come to refute them or efface their religion or establish his own religion instead. Likewise Allah did not send down any of His Books to refute any of His own previous books, but to support and confirm them. 149

That is, the message and ministry of Jesus was the proclamation of Islam and the Shari’ah, as stated in Surah Maida 5:49:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

In our examination of the Biblical concept of the Eschatological Prophet, we saw how the ministry of Jesus fulfils the law. He did not come simply to repeat it. Interestingly, the Qur’an appears to be self-contradictory in this regard, perhaps reflecting its borrowing from Christian sources which address this issue of fulfilment. Surah 3:50 states ‘(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.’ Unlike the Biblical concept of fulfilment, this seems very arbitrary.

One difference between the Islamic and Biblical views is that Jesus is portrayed solely as a local prophet – to Israel – e.g. S. 3:49 – ‘And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel’; S. 61:6 – ‘And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.”‘ Jamal Badawi asserts this restrictive mission – ‘MISSION specifically TO THE ISRAELITES (3:49, 5:75, 61:6)’. 150 Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.429 states that ‘…Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I [Muhammad] have been sent to all mankind.’

This reflects the traditional Muslim view as suggested by Badawi that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, although none of the texts Badawi mentions explicitly restrict the ministry of Jesus to Israel. Indeed, S. 5:110 could be interpreted as commissioning Jesus to speak to humanity as a whole – ‘When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity…’ {Pickthall). Moreover, Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91 states – ‘We made her and her son a Sign for all the worlds‘ (the proper translation of the Arabic – even though Yusuf Ali renders it ‘for all peoples’). The phrase is used of Muhammad in v107 of the same chapter. Only the Hadith establishes the unique claims of Muhammad to universal prophethood. It follows that Islam is intrinsically inconsistent with regard to this issue. This inconsistency becomes more glaring when consider the Return of Christ. If Jesus was only sent to Israel, why at His return does He become the ruler of the global Islamic State? Surely this prerogative should be restricted to Muhammad?

It is important to recognise that Jesus is viewed purely as a prophet, rather than as the Prophet. Given that S. 33:40 presents Muhammad as ‘the Seal of the Prophets’, it is clear that in Islamic terms, such a description would apply only to him. In regard to Jesus, the Qur’an effectively belittles Him – S. 5:75 ‘Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him.’ Jesus does nothing out of the ordinary, beyond bringing the Injil. There is nothing distinctive about Him as a Messenger that is not true of other prophets according to Islam (at least not before the Second Coming). This naturally involves Islam ignoring what is involved in being the Eschatological Prophet. We have seen the connection of the term with the Suffering Servant, whose passion is of a vicarious nature, something that Islam does not claim for Muhammad. It is noteworthy that Baagil, rather ludicrously, attempts to apply Isaiah 42:1 to Muhammad, but in doing so, he ignores the vicarious suffering that brings salvation in the other Servant Songs, and Muslims do not believe that Muhammad experienced a representative Passion that brings salvation to those with faith in him. 151 The term also has Messianic connotations, and the Qur’an is clear that only Jesus is termed ‘Messiah’. Whilst Muslims, such as Deedat, like to claim that Deuteronomy 18 is a prophecy of Muhammad, it is instructive that the Qur’an makes no such explicit assertion. To be sure, it does claim that the Torah predicted his coming, S. 7:157, but no specific verse or passage is identified as the source of this.

Another aspect of the Prophet in regard to the Servant and Messiah is the performance of miracles. We have already noted that Muhammad disavowed any claim to miracles, and thus, on that basis, Deuteronomy 18 cannot apply to him, since miracles are an essential, identifying function of the Eschatological Prophet. The Qur’anic Jesus does indeed perform miracles, but again, according to Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504 ‘Every Prophet was given miracles…’ (with the exception of Muhammad). The performance of miracles is viewed as a general prophetic function. The Islamic Jesus performs some miracles found in both apocryphal and canonical texts, and does so as an Apostle:

Surah Al-i’ Imran 3:49

“And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.

3. Al-Masih (Messiah)

Islam believes that Jesus is the Messiah, e.g. S. 3:45, although it never explains or comments on the term, demonstrating that the term has been lifted from the Bible, and that Islam remains dependent upon Christian sources for an explanation of the title. Yusuf Ali comments: ‘Christ: Greek, Christos = anointed: kings and priests were anointed to symbolise consecration to their office. The Hebrew and Arabic form is Masih. (3.45)’ Given that neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever define the term, it is quite legitimate to point to the Biblical and traditional Jewish concepts as providing the only basis for the title – which, as we have seen, involves a Messiah who is the Son of God, divine Himself, and one who vicariously suffers for His people. Deedat comments on the term:

The word “Christ” is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning “to rub”, “to massage”, “to anoint”. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices… Christos means “Anointed”, and anointed means appointed in its religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God’s Messenger. Every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the “anointed” ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah… Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. 152

In presenting the concept this way, Deedat is forced to ignore the Biblical and Jewish traditional concept of a climactic Anointed figure, whether royal, prophetic or priestly. No one (and nothing else) in the Bible is ever presented as the Maschiach in the titular sense, a major failing of Deedat’s polemic. Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an present John the Baptist as ‘anointing’ Jesus; in the Bible, the Holy Spirit does that, as God’s Son, Messiah, Prophet and Servant, with its priestly connotations. There is nothing in the Qur’an to indicate that Jesus is King in the sense of a reigning executive. Nowhere in the Qur’an does Jesus ever rule. Nor is any implication that He was ‘anointed’, the meaning of ‘Messiah’, ever presented in either the Qur’an or the Hadith. Again, Deedat has to obscure the meaning by making it just mean ‘appoint’. No one in the Qur’an is ever presented as ‘anointed’, something Deedat also ignores.

At any rate, the Islamic use of the title is itself logically inconsistent, since a king is only a king if he reigns, and in the Qur’an, Jesus never does. The Hadith presents Jesus as ruling after His Second Coming, but He does so as Amir or Imam, rather than Messianic King. Moreover, even in this respect Islam is glaringly lacking in logical progression. There is no indication, and definitely no prediction in the Qur’an that Jesus would ever reign in any sense. The Hadith presents the Islamic Jesus ruling after His return, having slain the Antichrist and destroyed all other religions:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.656Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said, “… the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said, “…son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

Another problem for Islam is that the Messiah, as Son of David, is specifically required to perform miracles. This, the Islamic Jesus does, it is true, but not as Messiah, but rather as an Apostle. We encounter no ‘deeds of the Messiah’ such as characterised the eschatological expected figure of Biblical hope and Jewish tradition. In fact, we see nothing in the Qur’an distinctive about the Messianic ministry of Jesus. Indeed, it is fair to say that in the Qur’an, Jesus has no ‘Messianic’ ministry – He does nothing as the Messiah. If the term were excised, the Qur’anic account would read just as well. The term is totally redundant and superfluous to His function and ministry in the Qur’an. This in itself demonstrates the borrowed nature of the term. The distinctive Christian belief over against Judaism is that Jesus is the Messiah, and Islam, claiming Muhammad was the climactic prophet in the line of Moses and Jesus, had to incorporate the title when it claimed Jesus as a prophet. However, by its ignorance of the connotations of the term, it has emptied the title of its meaning. Small wonder Deedat attempts to widen its employment, to play down its significance. This renders him dangerously close to heresy, since no one else in the Qur’an is entitled Al-Masih. Unwittingly, the Qur’an affirms the uniqueness of Jesus in this respect. This, and the emptiness of the Qur’anic use of the term indicates the Qur’an’s borrowing from Christian sources.

Largely as a result of a polemical debate with Medinan Jews, Islam denies the crucifixion, and so rejects the concept of a vicariously-dying Messiah – Surah An-Nisaa 4:157. That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them…’ Hence, a major function of the Messiah – His vicarious suffering leading to His divine vindication – is lost. Montgomery Watt has argued that the Jewish-Muslim debate was the origin of the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion. 153 The Medinan Jews are said to have responded to Muhammad’s claims of being a prophet in the line of Abraham, Moses and Jesus by denying the prophetic standing of Jesus, since they had been able to kill Him, which God would not have permitted if He had been a genuine divine emissary. Since that Muhammad claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus, the resultant implication is that if Jesus were a false prophet, Muhammad was likewise. Hence, we can comprehend Islam’s rejection of the reality of the death of Jesus, as being essential to safeguard not so much Him, but rather Muhammad against Jewish polemics. The Jews are not totally absolved of guilt, since the Qur’an definitely accuses them of attempted murder against Jesus.

4. A Servant of Allah

In Surah 19:30, the baby Jesus announces that He is ‘the servant (‘abd) of Allah’. However, whilst this is a description of Jesus, it does not appear to function as a title, and certainly not as a unique one (angels are described as servants in S. 4:172, and Zechariah is so-defined S. 19:2). There is no specific ministry that He accomplishes as a Servant. Zwemer in The Muslim Christ suggests that the statement in S. 4:172 ‘Christ will not scorn to be a slave unto Allah…’ (Pickthall) is a reference to ‘the title of the Messiah in Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah.’ 154 Whether this is so or not, there seems to be no specific theological necessity for Jesus to suffer according to Islam. Rather, the Qur’an simply makes the historical observation that this occurred, and notes that this was the common inheritance of the prophets:

Surah Al-Baqara 2:87ff87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!

91 When it is said to them: ‘believe in what Allah hath sent down’ they say ‘We believe in what was sent down to us’; yet they reject all besides even if it be truth confirming what is with them. Say: ‘Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by if ye did indeed believe?’

Surah An-Nisaa 4:155155 (They have incurred divine displeasure): in that they broke their Covenant: that they rejected the Signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; we need no more)’; nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy and little is it they believe.

156 That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.

157 That they said (in boast) ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah’; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 6093Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalib

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, “You have a resemblance to Jesus whom the Jews hated so much that they slandered his mother…Ahmad transmitted it.

It is quite possible that the original references to Jesus being the Servant of Allah did reflect the traditional Christian usage, but its distinctives, being at odds with Islamic soteriology, were excised. We noted how a similar excision appears to have taken place with regard to material from the Infancy pseudo-gospel. This is likely, since the Qur’an has tampered with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, where after the sin of the First Couple, God addresses the Serpent, saying ‘and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.’ The text predicts a Deliverer who will undo the work of Satan at cost to Himself, pointing to the Sacrificial death of Christ. New Testament texts reflect this and apply the prophecy to Jesus, such as John 12:31, which specifically deals with the Cross – ‘now the ruler of this world shall be cast out’, and 1 John 3:8 ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil.’

A comparison of Genesis 3:15 with the Qur’an reveals that instead of a promised Deliverer, there is a prediction of Guidance – S. 2:38 ‘We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve’; S. 20:123 ‘He said: Go down hence, both of you, one of you a foe unto the other. But if there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief.’ It is clear that Guidance of this sort has a salvatory function from what is stated in S. 7:35 ‘O Children of Adam! If messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.’ Thus in Islam, the ministry of guidance is equates with the Biblical ministry of sacrifice. hence, we should not be surprised to find Islam presenting not a Jesus who, as Suffering Servant willingly and in the divine plan suffers a sacrificial death, but rather merely a prophet who relays divine revelation.

The Qur’an presents the ministry of Jesus is portrayed as being met by unbelief and hostility. The Jews are depicted in the Qur’an as being guilty of unbelief with respect to the ministry and message of Jesus, S. 3:52ff. In particular, a major aspect of the suffering of the Islamic Jesus is found in S. 4:156, which indicates that Mary was accused of immorality, implying that Jesus was illegitimate: ‘That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.’ Yusuf Ali comments: ‘The false charge against Mary was that she was unchaste. Cf. xix. 27-28. Such a charge is bad enough to make against any woman, but to make it against Mary, the mother of Jesus, was to bring into ridicule Allah’s power itself.’

However, for all this, there is no indication in the Qur’an that Jesus vicariously suffers for all humanity in order that they may be saved. Instead, the sufferings of Jesus at the hands of the Jews is employed to explain and justify the removal of prophethood from that people to the Arabs, and thus argue for the Apostolic/Prophetic ministry of Muhammad, Surah Maidah 5:78 – ‘Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.’ Thus, instead of the sufferings of Jesus leading to blessing upon those for whom He suffered, it leads rather to disaster for them! Neither does the ministry of Jesus as the Servant bring salvation to the Gentiles, since He is supposedly only sent to the Jews (but consider the significance of Jesus as a sign for mankind, indicating that the Qur’anic redactors failed to eliminate all traces of the historical Jesus who suffers for humanity as a whole).

Of course, it is theologically impossible for Islam to accept the need for the crucifixion, since it rejects the concept of Vicarious Reconciliation, affirming the necessity of submission to God by obedience to Islamic law (the Shari’ah). The Muslim writer Abdalati declares on this subject that ‘Islam rejects the …Crucifixion… This rejection is based on the authority of God Himself as revealed in the Qur’an and on a deeper rejection of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins.’ 155 Perhaps, however, Islam did not completely succeed in excising the concept of the Suffering Servant. The following Hadith may reflect the original Christian concept of the death of Christ (although the prophet is unidentified), especially as Luke 23:34 says: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.63

Narrated by Abdullah

As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, ‘O Lord! Forgive my people as they do not know.’

5. A Word from Allah

One interesting title of Jesus in the Qur’an is Kalimat’Allah – Word of God. This on the surface presents a parallel with the Biblical concept of the Logos. However, Muslim tend to deny this. For example, Yusuf Ali denies that the term has an absolute sense, i.e. He is only a Word from God, not the Word of God:

381 Notice: “a Word from Allah”, not “the Word of Allah”, the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii. 59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by Allah’s word “Be”, and he was. (3.39)

Gilchrist quotes a Christian writer, speaking of Surah 3.45, makes the same point about the form of the words in the text:

Further, in the verse from the Qur’an which we have quoted, Christ is called ‘His Word’, that is, ‘God’s Word’. The Arabic shows that it means ‘The Word of God’, not merely ‘a Word of God’. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God’s mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15). 156

With respect to S. 3:39, this particular verse is difficult, since it refers to John the Baptist confirming a ‘Word from Allah’, and whilst this could refer to Jesus, it also could refer to Scripture. More obvious examples are found in the following two texts:

Surah Al-i-Imran 3:4545 Behold! the angels said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

46 ‘He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.’

47 She said: ‘O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it ‘Be’ and it is!

Surah An- Nisaa 4:171171. O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a spirit from him…

Zwemer comments that ‘modern Arabic usage clearly distinguishes between the Word of God in the sense of Holy Writ, which is always referred to as Kalâm Allah and the Word of God as His Messenger, which is Kalimet Allah. There are, however, only these two passages in which this New Testament title is given to out Saviour.’ 157 As with Al-Masih, there is no clear definition of what the term means in the Qur’an, but from what S. 4:171 states, it would appear that it means less than deity. In that verse He is presented as an apostle, a spirit from God, and God’s Word, in the context of the denial of Trinity. However, it is difficult to understand exactly its import. Baagil claims that it means that Jesus was directly created ‘in the womb of Mary’ without ‘the agency of sperm, just only with the decree of Allah’. 158 Jamal Badawi says much the same: ‘A WORD FROM ALLAH (3:39,45; 4:170). Word is not the “Logos” or the second person in Godhead. It is the creative command of Allah “KON” or “be” (2:117, 3:47,59, 6:73, 16:40, 19:35, 36:82, 40:68). ‘Words’ of Allah is used in (18:109, 8:7, 31:27) and others.’ 159Andrew Vargo, commenting on Badawi’s transmission on ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200’ on ‘Jesus in the Qur’an – Humanity’, reports Badawi as stating the following on the issue:

Host: The Qur’an calls Jesus the Word, just as the Bible, how is this different?

Jamal Badawi: The problem is the meaning of the term Word. There is a difference, the Christians believe that the Word is the absolute of God, John. This was the influence of Platonic philosophy. The Qur’an has nothing to do with the Logos, the Word means a command or sign from God. Sura 16:40:

For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, “Be”, and it is.

We are all words of God because we are all created by God’s command. There are 12 places in the Qur’an where words of God are used, so it is not unique to Jesus. 160

On this basis, the thrust of the term is ontological, rather than functional, although Badawi has perhaps overstated his case, in that its unique usage in regard to Jesus would seem to indicate some connection with the virgin birth. Further, his comments about the Platonic origin of the term as used in the Gospel of John are plainly inaccurate, as we have seen, since it is obvious that the dominant influence has been Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Sam Shamoun heavily criticises Badawi’s Qur’anic exegesis:

In none of the examples that Badawi presents is a person ever called God’s Word. The verses without exception refer to God’s ability to create by his Word or refer to the fact that God’s words are inexhaustible… (see endnotes) We are again left wondering how do these verses parallel the fact that Jesus is the only being who is called the Word of God? Badawi cannot produce one single reference to show that other beings or prophets are called God’s very own Word. Instead, he hopes to confuse the situation by bringing in irrelevant issues such as the fact that the Quran mentions God’s words as being inexhaustible or that he creates what he likes by his command or Word. And? Whoever said that God’s words are not inexhaustible or that God cannot create whatever he chooses by his powerful Word? Yet, this still does not touch the issue that not a single being, including angels themselves, is ever called the Word of God except Jesus.

Badawi must assume that Jesus is called the Word of God solely because he was created by God’s command. There are two main problems with his argument. First, Jesus is not simply a by-product of God’s command, but is the very Word of God to man: Sura 3:39…John is to bear witness to a Word from God, namely Jesus the Christ. Here, Jesus is the one who is the Word from God. The fact that he is a Word from God implies preexistence, that Jesus preexisted as God’s Word. This point is brought out more clearly in the two following passages: Sura 3:45… According to this passage God’s Word is not a mere abstraction but rather a person. This is due to the fact that the Word of God is given a personal name, Jesus. This implies that Badawi’s argument that Jesus is only a by-product of God’s creative command cannot be sustained. Hence, according to this one passage the Word of God is personal and shall take on the name of Jesus.

[Commenting on 4:171] Jesus is both the Word of God, not just a word from him, given to Mary and a spirit that proceeds from God himself. Hence, in one sense the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus and yet in other places it affirms that he is the divine preexistent Word and Spirit from God. Secondly, if it were true that Jesus is God’s word solely because he was created by the command of God then we would expect to find Adam called the Word of God (according to Sura 3:59) since he was also created by God’s command. Yet, neither Adam nor anyone else is ever called the Word of God. 161

Even if we differ from Shamoun’s claim that the Qur’anic term definitely points to the pre-existence of Jesus, it is likely that the Biblical concept was the original form that the Qur’an adapted and emptied of meaning. It is definitely employed in a titular sense by Islam, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith, and only ever of Jesus, never any other prophet, not even Muhammad:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5762

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

When some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast…

Sahih Muslim Hadith 380Narrated by AbuHurayrah and Hudhayfah

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, would gather the people. The believers would stand until the Paradise is brought near them. They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open Paradise for us. He would say: What turned ye out from Paradise was the sin of your father, Adam. I am not in a position to do that; you should go to my son, Ibrahim, the Friend of Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: He (Ibrahim) would say: I am not in a position to do that. Verily I had been the Friend (of Allah) from a long time ago; you should approach Moses (peace be upon him) with whom Allah conversed. They would come to Moses (peace be upon him) but he would say: I am not in a position to do that; you should go to Jesus, the Word of Allah and His spirit. Jesus (peace be upon him) would say: I am not in a position to do that. So they would come to Muhammad (peace be upon him)…

It is the unique titular usage of Kalimat’Allah that is so interesting. The Qur’an makes other ontological points about Jesus, mainly negative, e.g. that He was not God, but none of them function as a title. Yet this term does just that. The question is why? The issue becomes even more intriguing when we consider that the titles of other prophets appear to be functional, rather than ontological in nature, again pointing to the uniqueness of Jesus. This last point undermines an assertion of Deedat:

Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation “Christ” is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like “Rasulullah“, meaning “Messenger of God”, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet “Rasullullah” has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a “Friend of God”, but its Arabic equivalent “Khalillullah” is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God’s friends. “Kaleemullah“, meaning “One who spoke with Allah” is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms. 162

The titles of the prophets in Islam in each case describe a particular relationship that messenger enjoyed with God. It is significant that that the relationship that Jesus is said to enjoy with Allah is the only one that is ontological in nature. There surely must be more to the term than just the idea that Jesus was the result of a divine fiat. Gilchrist argues ‘The Qur’an says no more of Adam than that “he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration” (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, “from his Lord”, but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the “Word of God”. As there is, nonetheless, no explanation of the title in the Qur’an, we shall have to turn, as we did with the title Al-Masih, to the Christian Bible to find its real meaning…’ 163 Zwemer observes about the term in relation to the titles of other prophets, ‘The title given to Moses is Kalim Allah, and the common explanation is that Moses was the mouth-piece of God in the sense that God spake to him, and made him His special confidant; but Jesus is the Kalimet Allah or Word of God, because He communicates God’s word, God’s will to men.’ 164 Zwemer further notes ‘If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God’s will; but since God Himself calls Him “the Word of God”, it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God’s will, and the only perfect manifestation of God.’ 165 Gilchrist’s observation is very pertinent:

There are two key factors that the Muslims are only too inclined to overlook – the application of the title to Jesus alone and the fact that he is clearly described in Surah 4.171 as “His Word”, meaning not a Word from God alone but the Word of God. Abdul-Haqq states the first factor quite plainly – the title is “an expression uniquely used of Jesus Christ”. The Qur’an, in Surah 3.59, states that “the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam” and promptly defines that likeness. God simply said “Be”, and he came to be (kun fayakuun), implying that both were made by the single word of God in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God. 166

As stated earlier, the likelihood is that the title reflects the Christian usage, but that Qur’anic redaction has diluted its original significance. There appears to be no other reason for its employment. No doubt Muhammad and the early Muslims encountered Christians referring to Jesus as ‘the Word of God’, and so included it in their new religion, albeit in a slightly transformed fashion. It is important to recognise that the Christian usage claims a heavy background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, notably the targums. What background can the Islamic title claim, especially if it is interpreted as Badawi and Yusuf Ali assert? Especially as the Qur’an nowhere explains the function of the title? We noted earlier that probably because of the virgin birth, Jesus is described as a ‘sign’ to mankind. Possibly the concept of Jesus being ‘the Word’ is related to this as well. It would seem that the miraculous supernatural origins of Jesus are maintained even in the Qur’anic redaction, to some degree.

6. A spirit from Allah

Usually coupled with the previous title is the reference to Jesus as being a spirit from God – Ruh’Allah. The Spirit of God (Ruh’Allah) is to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit (Ruh-al-Quddus). The former is Jesus, the latter Gabriel. This often causes confusion for both Christians and Muslims. With regard to the title as used of Jesus, as in 4:171, Zwemer observes that ‘the commentators are not agreed as to its real significance, and whether it is a name that can be applied to Jesus Christ, or whether the passage simply signifies that Jesus, with all other mortals, was partaker of the creative Spirit of God.’ 167 Badawi observes about the term ‘A SPIRIT FROM ALLAH (4:171): same applies to other humans (15:29, 32:9, 38:72).‘ This makes it clear that he sees nothing singular about the term, although it should be noted that the texts to which Badawi refers concern the creation of Adam. The immediate question is that if this is all Islam means by the term, why has it become a defining title of Jesus, not least in the Hadith, as we have noted earlier with regard to ‘the Word’? For the text does not simply say that God breathed His spirit into the womb of Mary, but rather that Jesus was a spirit from Him. Gilchrist writes:

In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, “a Word from him”. Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, “a Spirit from him”. On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. Once again no attempt is made to explain the title in the Qur’an, yet it frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form. It is the closest the Qur’an comes to admitting the pre-existence of Jesus before his conception on earth. The lack of any explanation of its meaning, however, or why it should be applied uniquely to Jesus just as the other two titles are, suggests that Muhammad once again heard and adopted Christian teachings and titles applying to Jesus without understanding them or seeing their ominous implications for his dogma that Jesus was only a prophet like all the other prophets.

Precisely in the passage already mentioned, where Muhammad uses the epithets ‘Logos’ and ‘Spirit’ with reference to Jesus and seems to approach the concept of trinity, it can be clearly understood that Muhammad did not realise the implication of these Christian expressions which he had acquired from hearsay. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 71). 168

The Muslim answer appears to be found in the Hadith, which gives the impression that all human spirits were characterised by some form of pre-existence, and that Jesus was simply one of these:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 122

Narrated by Ubayy ibn Ka’b

In regard to the words of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, “Your Lord brought forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam.” (7:172) Ubayy said: He gathered them and paired them then fashioned them and endowed them with the power of speech and they began to speak. He then made an agreement and covenant with them. He made them bear witness about themselves (saying) Am I not your Lord. They said: Yes. He said: I call to witness seven heavens and seven earths regarding you and I call witness your father Adam regarding you lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: We do not know this. Bear this in mind that there is no god besides Me and there is no Lord besides Me and do not associate anything with Me. It is I Who should be sending to you My messengers in order to remind you My agreement and My covenant and it is I who would send you My Books. They said: We bear witness to the fact that Thou art our Lord, Thou art our Object of worship. There is no Lord besides Thee and there is no object of worship besides Thee. They confirmed this (pledge). Adam was raised above them so that he would see them and he saw the rich and the poor, those having handsome faces and even those inferior to them and he said: My Lord, why is it that Thou hast not made Thy servants alike? He said: I wish that I should be thanked. And he also saw the Prophets, some amongst them like lamps with light in them, distinguished by another covenant regarding messengership and prophethood, viz. the words of the Blessed and the High: And when We made covenant with the prophets – up to His words: Jesus son of Mary (33:7). He was among those spirits and He sent him to Mary (peace be upon both of them). And it is narrated by Ubayy that he entered by her mouth.

Transmitted by Ahmad.

The doctrine of this tradition does not seem to agree with that of the Qur’an, and it smacks of being contrived, possibly with a view to countering Christian polemics about the eternal nature of Christ. At any rate, the provenance of the hadiths with regard to the Qur’an is debatable, whatever Muslims affirm. Certainly the text in S. 33:7 in no way implies the pre-existence of the prophets or human beings in general. If the term is simply a description of Jesus’ origins, it is strange that it has come to function as a title, and one that distinguishes Jesus from other Messengers. As with ‘the Word’, this title is never employed of any other prophet. Gilchrist observes how the term has come to be used in a titular sense:

Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (“O Spirit of Allah”). It is a very common title in many works. In one place his disciples are found saying to him:

“O Spirit of God, describe to us the friends of God (Exalted is He!) upon whom there is no fear, and who do not grieve”. (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 86). 169

Even if the titles of the prophets are not exclusive as Deedat claims, it requires some explanation as to why an ontological description is applied uniquely to Jesus, whereas other prophets are known by functional or relational titles. No other human being in the Qur’an is ever described as a spirit in this way. Rather, the term Ruh is applied to angels, such as Gabriel, e.g. 70:4; 78:38; 97:4. In fact, the ‘Spirit’ in these texts is usually, though not universally identified as Gabriel. In this case, we have a heavenly being identified as a spirit. It is natural, consistent exegesis to interpret ruh in other cases as being of this nature. Gilchrist comments:

“Candid Muhammadan writers freely admit that this title ‘Spirit of God’ carries with it some speciality such as can be predicated of no other prophet” (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 21). It is very interesting to note that the very expression applied to Jesus in Surah 4.171, ruhun minhu, appears in exactly the same form in Surah 58.22 where we read that God strengthens true believers with “a spirit from him”. The Muslim translator Yusuf Ali appends the following comment to this verse:

Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything the phrase used here is stronger, “a spirit from Himself”. Whenever anyone offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that Faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with the divine spirit which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1518). 170

Although Jesus is not described as ‘the Spirit of God’, the close relationship He enjoys with the Third Person of the Trinity, being born through the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, being anointed by Him at the Baptism, pouring out the Spirit on believers, no doubt led to confusion among early Muslims, very likely as the Qur’an misconstrues so many other Christian doctrines, not least the identity and nature of the Trinity, which it seems to view as God, Mary and Jesus, thereby excluding the Spirit. Of course, the Spirit is given the title ‘Spirit of Christ’ in Romans 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11. In John 20:22 we read that Jesus breathed on the disciples saying ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas the Israelite v10, (First Greek form) which many have suggested as one of the sources of the Qur’an, we find the crowd acclaiming the child Jesus after a miracle with the words ‘Truly the Spirit of God dwells in this child.’ In v15, we read of the child Jesus ‘He spoke by the Holy Spirit, and taught the law to those that were standing round.’ If Muhammad and the early Muslims misunderstood Christian doctrine on this point, their confusion might have led them to misconstrue the Spirit as another term for Jesus, and then they would have adapted and transformed the concept, diluting it to fit Islamic presuppositions. This would appear to be a likely source for the Qur’anic idea. Certainly, the title is ontological, rather than functional, and it is never actually explained in the Qur’an, suggesting that the Christian concept in some form is understood as its background.

---

Conclusion

It follows from our examination of the titles of Jesus in the Bible that the New Testament designations of Him were neither arbitrary nor contrived. They were rooted in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. These names and titles described both the nature and function of Jesus. Even when a designation may not have been fully recognised as a title (or possibly, even at all), such as the term ‘Son of Man’, there was sufficient Old Testament and Jewish background to allow the hearers some measure of understanding. If people did misconstrue, such as thinking Jesus came to establish a political kingdom, His reference to the Suffering Servant helped to set the record straight. The tittles appear to be inter-related, and could only be fulfilled in their totality (as well as individually) by one person. There is an inner logical consistency in their concepts and in the application of them to Jesus. What emerges from the titles we examined is that Jesus is a divine figure who descended from heaven to die on our behalf, to atone for and liberate us from sin. We have been able to account for all the designations of Jesus in this way. Further, the titles explain both the ontological nature and functional roles of Jesus, the latter flowing naturally from the former.

With the Muslim titles, however, this logical coherence is largely absent. None of them can claim a background in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. What background they possess appears largely to consist in a diluted transformation of canonical and apocryphal gospels. Throughout, their character betrays contrivance and innovation. They present a confused picture of Jesus’ origins, and frequently tell us little about His ministry. This is especially true of the cardinal title found in both the Bible and the Qur’an – the Messiah. The term is unexplained by the latter, and can only be understood by studying the former. In regard to other Biblical titles, it is clear that the Qur’an misunderstands the concept of ‘the Son of God’, and what it denies is not what Christians believe. It is possible that ‘Son of Mary’ arose as a Qur’anic title partly as a result of anti-Christian polemic. Other titles have been grossly diluted, such as the Servant, and virtually emptied of meaning. Titles such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of David’, ‘Priest’ and ‘Saviour’ have disappeared altogether, probably because they could not be adapted, especially the priestly activity of the Servant. The understanding of Jesus’ prophetic and apostolic ministry in Islam is not identical to that in the Bible, not just to the New Testament, but to what the Old Testament and Jewish tradition expected of the Eschatological Prophet and the Shaliach. The lack of any basis in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition is crucial for the debate as to the identity of the historical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus conforms to this tradition, fitting the picture presented. The Islamic Jesus is frankly foreign to this picture. Naturally, because divine scriptural revelation ended with Jesus and those He appointed as His Shaliach representatives.

---

References

1. Morris, Leon, The Lord from heaven, (IVP, Leicester, 1958, 1974), pp. 57-58.

2. Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 137.

3. Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Theology, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), p. 301.

4. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 237-238.

5. Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (SPCK, London, 1992), p. 330.

6. Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, (Fontana, London, 1965), p. 24.

7. Ibid.

8. Motyer, Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah, (IVP, Leicester, 1993), pp. 102-103.

9. France, R. T., Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1989), p. 285.

10. Ibid, p. 285.

11. Carson, D. A., ‘Christological ambiguities in Matthew’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, Rowdon, Harold. H. (ed.), (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 105.

12. Grogan, Geoffrey, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979), p. 43.

13. Cullmann, Oscar, Christology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 273.

14. Richardson, Alan, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1959), p. 150.

15. Ibid.

16. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 207.

17. Ibid., p. 189.

18. Lindars, Barnabas, Jesus Son of Man, (SPCK, London, 1983), pp. 148-149.

19. Verseput, Donald, ‘The Role and Meaning of the “Son of God” title in Matthew’s gospel’, New Testament Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 537-538.

20. Moo, Douglas, Romans 1-8, (Moody, Chicago, 1991), pp. 40-41.

21. Ladd, George Eldon, A Theology of the New Testament, (Eerdmans, USA, 1974), pp. 166-167.

22. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, p. 310.

23. Dunn, James, Jesus and the Spirit, (SCM, London, 1975), p. 23.

24. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 149.

25. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.

26. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 36.

27. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 167.

28. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his unique Son, that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    John 3:17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
    John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
    John 3:36 He that believes on the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains with him.
    John 5:19 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing: for whatever things he does, these the Son also does in like manner.
    John 5:20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does: and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel.
    John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he will.
    John 5:22 For neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all judgment to the Son;
    John 5:23 that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.
    John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
    John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one beholding the Son, and believing on him, shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
    John 8:36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
    John 14:13 And whatever you shall ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
    John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that the son may glorify you.

29. Walker Jr., William O., ‘John 1:43-51 and “The Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (Issue 54, 1994, Sheffield), p. 41.

30. Kümmel, Walter, The Theology of the New Testament, (SCM, London, 1974), p. 269.

31. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 270.

32. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 148.

33. Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, (C. U. P., Cambridge, 1931, 1935), p. 218.

34. Bruce, F. F., ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 58.

35. Young, E. J., The Prophecy of Daniel, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1949), p. 154.

36. Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew, (SCM, London, 1973, Second edition), pp. 171-172.

37. Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 54.

38. Rowe, Robert D., ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 88.

39. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 82.

40. Ibid.

41. Bruce, F. F., Israel and the Nations, (Paternoster, Exeter, 1963, 1983 revised edition), pp. 144-146.

42. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 146.

43. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 166.

44. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 294.

45. Goldingay, John, Daniel, (Word, Dallas, 1987, UK edition 1991), p. 261.

46. Rowe, ‘Is Daniel’s “Son of Man” Messianic?’, p. 93.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., p. 75.

50. saiah 52:13-15: 13′idou sunhsei ‘o paiv mou kai ‘uqwyhsetai kai doxasyhsetai sfodra 14on tropon ‘eksthsontai ‘epi se polloi ‘outwv ‘adoxhsei ‘apo ‘anyrwpwn to ‘eidov sou kai ‘h doxa sou ‘apo twn ‘anyrwpwn 15′outwv yaumasontai ‘eynh polla ‘ep‘ ‘autw kai sunexousin basileiv to stoma ‘autwn ‘oti ‘oiv ‘ouk ‘anhggelh peri ‘autou ‘oqontai kai ‘oi ‘ouk ‘akhkoasin sunhsousin

51. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 426.

52. Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue, (Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Kuwait, 1984), p. 32.

53. Bruce, ‘The background to the Son of Man sayings’, p. 58ff.

54. Bruce, ibid., p. 58.

55. Bruce, ibid., pp. 58-59.

56. Martens, E. A., Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), pp. 207-208.

57. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 121.

58. Grogan, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, p. 39.

59. France, R. T., Jesus and the Old Testament, (Tyndale, London, 1971), pp. 132-133.

60. France, ibid., p. 134.

61. France, ibid., p. 134.

62. France, ibid., p. 134.

63. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 262.

64. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 77-80.

65. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 120-121. (The quote about ebed Yahweh is from Cullman, Christology of the New Testament, p. 65.

66. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 262-263.

67. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 122-123.

68. France, Ibid., p. 106.

69. France, Ibid., pp. 106-107.

70. France, Ibid., p. 108.

71. France, Ibid., p. 154.

72. Fairbairn, Patrick, Typology of Scripture Vol. 1, (1900; reprint by Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1989), p. 371.

73. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 108-109.

74. McKenzie, John, A Theology of the Old Testament, (Chapman, London, 1974), p. 250.

75. Kaiser, Walter, Towards an Old Testament Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978), p. 155.

76. Ibid.

77. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp. 139-140.

78. Chilton, Bruce, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, (SPCK, London, 1984), p. 200.

79. Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 109.

80. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 109.

81. Bruce, F. F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983), p. 241.

82. Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1996), pp. 241-242.

83. Deedat, Ahmed, What the Bible says about Muhammad, (IPCI, Birmingham, undated), p. 5ff.

84. Ibid., p. 12.

85. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, p. 209.

86. Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Tradition, (Blackwell, Oxford, 1978), p. 12n.

87. Ibid., p. 13.

88. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 47.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504
    Narrated by Abu Huraira
    The Prophet said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed, but what I have been given, is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me…’

92. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 48.

93. Ibid., p. 47.

94. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 82.

95. Barclay, William, Jesus as they saw him, (SCM, London, 1962), p. 367

96. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 92.

97. Hill, David, New Testament Prophecy, (Marshall Morgan & Scott, Basingstoke, 1979), p. 49.

98. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 57.

99. Ibid., p. 82.

100. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 58.

101. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, p. 83.

102. Ibid.

103. Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 238.

104. Ladd, George Eldon, The Presence of the Future, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1974), p. 165.

105. Ibid., pp. 151-152.

106. Ibid., p. 151.

107. Barclay, Jesus as they saw him, p. 322.

108. Ibid. pp. 323-324.

109. Ibid., p. 323.

110. Hill, New Testament Prophecy, p. 54.

111. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 238.

112. Ibid., pp. 238-239.

113. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp. 322-323.

114. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 241.

115. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 223.

116. Jacob, Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament, (Hodder & Stoughton, London,1958), p. 127.

117. Ibid., p 128.

118. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.

119. Dahms, J. V., Isaiah 55:11 and the Gospel of John, (Evangelical Quarterly, April-June, 1981), pp. 78-88.

120. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 129.

121. Morris, The Lord from heaven, p. 94.

122. Hayward, C. T. R., The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel (New Testament Studies 25, 1978) pp. 16-32.

123. Ibid.

124. Mowvley, H., John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7-34:35′, (Expository Times).

125. Hooker, M. D., The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret, (New Testament Studies 21 1974), p. 40-58.

126. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 242.

127. McNamara, Martin, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum, (PBI, Rome, 1956), p. 184ff.

128. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 324.

129. Ibid., p. 325.

130. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 134.

131. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 164.

132. Bruce, F. F., The Work of Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979, 1984), p. 74.

133. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 451.

134. Ibid.

135. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 250.

136. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, p. 248.

137. Cotterell, F. P., ‘The Christology of Islam’, Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, p. 284.

138. Deedat, Ahmed, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

139. Gilchrist, John, Christ in Islam and Christianity: A Comparative Study of the Christian and Muslim Attitudes to the Person of Jesus Christ, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

140. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 34-35.

141. Gilchrist, Christ in Islam and Christianity, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html

142. Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 284.

143. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 33.

144. Ibid., pp. 26-27.

145. Cotterell, ‘The Christology of Islam’, p. 285.

146. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, pp. 30-31.

147. Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979), p. 20.

148. Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1948, 1975), p. 193.

149. Mawdudi, Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1 Al-Ma’idah, (Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1993), p. 47

150. Badawi, Jamal,Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html

151. Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, pp. 41-42.

152. Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

153. Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad in Medina, (Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 317.

154. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 28.

155. Abdalati, Hammudah, Islam in Focus, (American Trust Publications, 1975), p. 159.

156. Gilchrist, John, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

157. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.

158. Baagil, Christian-Muslim Dialogue, p. 21.

159. Badawi, Jamal, Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html

160. Vargo, Andrew, Responses to Jamal Badawi’s ‘Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200′ http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200B7.htm

161. Shamoun, Sam, Jesus Christ in the Qur’an and Bible Part III, http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi-jesus3.htm
     Sura 2:117: ‘The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be!’ – and it is.’
     Sura 3:47, 59: ‘She said: `O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’ He said: `So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is’… Verily, the likeness of ‘Iesa (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: `Be!’ – and he was.’
     Sura 6:73: ‘It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in truth, and on the Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) He will say: ‘Be!’, – and it shall become. His Word is the truth. His will be the dominion on the Day when the trumpet will be blown. AllKnower of the unseen and the seen. He is the AllWise, Well-Aware (of all things).
     Sura 16:40: ‘Verily! Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 19:35: ‘It befits not (the Majesty of) Allâh that He should beget a son (this refers to the slander of Christians against Allâh, by saying that ‘Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allâh). Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 36:82: ‘Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is!’
     Sura 40:68: ‘He it is Who gives life and causes death. And when He decides upon a thing He says to it only: ‘Be!’ and it is.’
     Sura 18:109: ‘Say (O Muhammad SAW to mankind). `If the sea were ink for (writing) the Words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished, even if we brought (another sea) like it for its aid.’ ‘
     Sura 8:7: ‘And (remember) when Allâh promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allâh willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).’
     Sura 31:27: ‘And if all the trees on the earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with seven seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words of Allâh would not be exhausted. Verily, Allâh is AllMighty, AllWise.’

162. Deedat, Christ in Islam, http://www.afi.org.uk/other/50.html

163. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

164. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 29.

165. Ibid., p. 37.

166. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/

167. Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 30.

168. Gilchrist, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid.

A Christian reads the Qur`an

L. M. Abdallah

Original Swedish title: En Kristen läser Koranen

Translated by Adrian De Almeida

Foreword

The interpretation of the Qur`ân is:

• from my perspective as a Christian.

The aim of the study is:

• to make the characters, teachings and events of the Qur`ân easily accessible.

The study is intended for:

• those interested in getting acquainted with the Qur`ân.

• Christians who have recently converted from Islam.

Nowadays many people have a greater interest in getting to know what the Qur`ân teaches but since they are not used to it, they find the Qur`ân unstructured and inaccessible. Very often they feel that they need some assistance, and it is such assistance that this book would like to offer. Here they can get acquainted with some of the Qur`ân’s characters, events and teachings from a Christian perspective.

For many new Christians from a Muslim background their relationship to the Qur`ân is not so obvious. They may have indeed found salvation in Christ, but a question which soon arises is what they will now do with Muhammad and the Qur`ân.

For them, the Qur`ân came with their mothers’ milk, so to speak, but they have perhaps never dared to pose any critical questions about the book, such questions being taboo within traditional Islam.

As new Christians they dare, often for the first time in their lives, to question the position of the Qur`ân as the Word of God. This study may help the new Christian to deal with this question.

I have many Muslim friends whom I respect. I would be disappointed if Christians used this study without love with the aim of attacking Islam.

L M Abdallah

Stockholm 1995

Simplified Transcription and Pronunciation

Arabic Name/Letter   Sign Used  Pronunciation hamza`glottal stop, as in “a car”âlifa, â“^” marks a long vowelbâ’btâ’tthâ’thas in “three”jîmjhâ’h(aspirated) khâ’khas in German “Buch“ dâlddhâldhas in “the”râ’rzâ’zsînsshînshas in “she”sâds(velarised)dâdd(velarised) tâ’t(velarised) zâ’z(velarised)‘ayn‘voiced counterpart of “ha'” ghaynghsimilar to throaty French “r” fâ’fqâfq(uvular), as “k” not “kw” kâfk(palatal)lâml mîmm nûnn hâ’hwâww, û yâ’y, î

CONTENTS

Introduction

A. The Qur`an, The Eternal Word of God

1. The original is in heaven

2. God is able to change or confirm earlier books

3. No unclean person is to touch the Qur`ân

B. Arguments for the Divine Origin of the Qur`an

1. The Qur`ân agrees with earlier scripture

2. Jews converted to Islam

3. The Qur`ân came in Arabic

4. No-one can produce such a recital

5. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

C. It is in Accordance With Earlier Revelations

1. The Qur`ân confirms earlier scriptures

2. The People of the Book pretended that they did not know

3. Jews and Christians studied the Bible during the time of Muhammad

4. The Bible was studied and taught by Christians

5. Jews and Christians are challenged to hold to the Bible

6. Those listening are challenged to consult the People of the Book

D. The Qur`an is Positive Towards the People of the Book

1. The Jews received God’s book and the task of preserving it

2. Jews are challenged to hold to the Book

3. Jews and Christians need not fear judgment

4. Jesus’ disciples were true believers

5. Jesus’ followers will be made superior to those who reject faith

E. The Qur`an Deviates from the Bible

1. Cain, Abel and the raven

2. The wives of Noah, Lot and Pharaoh and the Virgin Mary

3. Abraham’s father

4. Abraham refuses to worship idols

5. Abraham and the red-hot furnace

6. Abraham and the Kaaba

7. Joseph and Potiphar’s wife

8. Moses adopted by Pharaoh’s wife

9. Moses and an unknown person’s peculiar journey

10. Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh and his magicians

11. Pharaoh and Haman

12. Mount Sinai hovering over the children of Israel in the desert

13. Moses, Aaron, the golden calf and Al Samiri

14. Miriam and the Virgin Mary

15. Tâlût (Saul) and Gideon

16. The wise Solomon

17. Dhu al Qarnayn (Alexander the Great)

18. The Virgin Mary and Zechariah

19. Zechariah was struck dumb

20. Mary gives birth to Jesus

21. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

22. Jesus is merely human

23. Jesus has never died

24. The sleepers in the cave

F. Christians and Jews Have Falsified the Bible

1. The People of the Book have different opinions about the Bible

2. Christians deliberately distort the Bible

3. Jews falsify the Word of God

4. God himself alters his book

5. God replaces old Qur`ân verses with better ones

G. Jesus in the Qur`an

1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary

2. Mary and the baby Jesus were given shelter on a hill

3. Jesus is the Word of God and the Spirit of God

4. Jesus is created like Adam

5. The miracles of Jesus in the Qur`ân

6. Jesus received the Gospel from God

7. God has never begotten anyone

8. God has no son

9. Jesus denies the Trinity

10. Jesus has never died

11. Has Jesus died after all?

12. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

H. Muhammad in the Qur`an

1. The Muslim is to obey God and Muhammad

2. Muhammad, the seal of the prophets

3. Muhammad performed no signs

4. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

5. Muhammad saw Gabriel twice

6. Muhammad’s nocturnal journey to Jerusalem

7. Muhammad was accused of being a false prophet

8. Muhammad was accused like all other prophets

9. Muhammad’s right to unlimited marriages

10. Muhammad was prohibited from marrying again

11. Muhammad could bypass the order of wives

12. Muhammad could break inconvenient promises

13. Muhammad married his adopted son’s former wife

14. Threat of divorce because of gossip

15. Promise of blessing for lowering the voice

16. No-one could stay too long with Muhammad

17. Jews who were forced to flee from Medina

18. Muhammad decided over Jewish booty

I. The Foundational Beliefs of Islam

1. The articles of Islamic belief

2. The doctrine of the one true God

3. God has no son

4. The ninety-nine most beautiful names of Allah

J. The Five Pillars of Islam

1. The witness

2. The prayers

3. The fast

4. The alms

5. The pilgrimage

K. Judgement and Grace

1. Two angels record people’s deeds

2. All deeds are written down

3. A person is chained to his eternal destiny

4. The scales decide paradise and hell

5. If God were to judge justly everyone would perish

6. One good deed outweighs ten evil deeds

7. God forgives those who turn in repentance

8. God will fill hell

9. No grace in hell

L. Paradise and Hell

1. Paradise is before God’s throne

2. Paradise for husbands and wives

3. Paradise contains all that could please the eye

4. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

5. People drink wine in paradise

6. Hell is a place of eternal torment

7. The food of hell

8. Fire and boiling water in hell

9. Disobedience towards Allah and Muhammad is regretted in hell

M. Jinn, Angels and Mysticism

1. The jinn were created from fire

2. Some jinn are righteous

3. Jinn repent and preach to others

4. Jinn believe in the Qur`ân

5. Evil jinn are the fuel of hell

6. All angels fell down before Adam except the devil

7. The angels Harut and Marut taught evil

8. Shooting stars chase away evil spirits

9. God gave Solomon demonic power

10. Heaven is opened during the night of power

N. Jihad

1. Jihâd in the cause of God

2. Holy war

3. Idolaters were to be killed if they did not become Muslims

4. Combat all non-Muslims

5. Paradise awaits those who die in Jihâd

6. Cowardly soldiers are punished with hell

7. The spoils of war

8. Muhammad’s share of the spoils

O. Islam’s Opponents

1. Terrible punishments for the opponents of Islam

2. Punishment awaits those who leave Islam

3. Opponents are given an ignominious burial

4. Hell for the disobedient

5. No protection for the apostate

6. Idolaters were to become Muslims or be executed

P. Equality Between Men and Women

1. Men are a degree above women

2. Two female witnesses are like one male

3. Two daughters inherit as one son

4. Wife-beating

5. Maid-servants can be forced into sex

6. Men are allowed four wives

7. Men can divorce women

8. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

Bibliography and List of References

Qur`an Verses

Bible Verses

Introduction

The word Qur`ân comes from the Arabic “Al Qur`ân” which means “The Recital”, and it was only in that form that the Qur`ân was available as it grew over a period of twenty-two years. It was only after Muhammad’s death that it was compiled as a book.

The Qur`ân is therefore not just a book to be read for its content, but for many Muslims the Qur`ân is in its proper form when it is recited in Arabic using the characteristic chanting of Muhammad. It is then that it exists in its original form.

The public reading of the Qur`ân has developed into an art form of its own with certain rules for rhythm, melody and pauses.

In Egypt, for example, those who can read the Qur`ân in the prescribed manner can receive wide acclaim. The best readers of the Qur`ân can be heard virtually every day on TV, radio and on tape at workplaces, markets and so on.

The Qur`ân grew gradually as Muhammad announced new “revelations” which, according to his own testimony, had been dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. One of those present would then try to remember the new verses or write them down on skin, palm leaves, pieces of bone or white stones. Then Muhammad himself would give instructions as to where these new verses should come in the text which was divided into chapters or suras. The Qur`ân was also memorized by certain people known as “hâfiz”. These “hâfiz”, as well as written fragments, later became a primary source during the Qur`ân’s compilation.

According to Muhammad, the Qur`ân was dictated in Arabic by the angel Gabriel. If the Qur`ân is translated into other languages it ceases to be the Qur`ân in its true sense, but according to Islam, a translation can at best capture the meaning of the Qur`ân. However for practical reasons we will have to use a translation.

The first Qur`ân was compiled within two years after Muhammad’s death by a “hâfiz” named Zaid ibn Thâbit by the command of the first Caliph Abu Bakr. It was called “The Leaves” or “The Pages” and was kept safe by one of Muhammad’s widows, Hafsah.

Since Islam covered the whole Arabian peninsula, the Qur`ân came to be recited in seven different dialects. In time, differences and small variations arose in the text. The third Caliph, Uthmân, decided to compile a new official version of the Qur`ân. He gave the task to Zaid ibn Thâbit, who had put together the first version, along with three other “hâfiz”, ‘Abdallah ibn Zubair, Sa’îd ibn Al Âs and ‘Abdallah ibn Hârith ibn Hishâm. We can only speculate as to why the original Qur`ân was not simply copied. The only logical explanation is that “The Leaves of Hafsah” were not a complete version of the Qur`ân after all.

When the official Qur`ânic text had been established, all other deviating versions of the Qur`ân were burned. Only the original “leaves of Hafsah” escaped the flames, but even this copy was later burned by a certain Marwân, who was the mayor of Medina. These drastic proceedings eliminated much of the discussion surrounding the Qur`ânic text, but far from all of it.

Background to Introduction:

Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, pp 21-56

Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, pp 259-261

A Christian Reads the Qur`an

Quotations from the Qur`ân have been taken from The Holy Qur`ân (Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

A. The Qur`an, the Eternal Word of God

The Qur`ân claims to be the eternal and perfect word of God. Traditional Islam teaches that the Qur`ân existed in eternity before God created the world. At a certain point in history it came down through the angel Gabriel and was dictated to Muhammad word for word and letter for letter. (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p. 15, pp 36-38).

A1. The original is in heaven

“And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in our presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom.” Al Zukhruf 43:4

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, God has an original book in heaven. The idea is that the Qur`ân is an exact copy of the heavenly original. The Qur`ân therefore claims that it is a copy of the eternal word of God.

A2. God is able to change or confirm earlier books

“…For each period is a Book (revealed). Allah doth blot out or confirm what he pleaseth: with him is the Mother of the Book.” Al Ra’d 13:38-39

Comment:
The Qur`ân states that God does not have to confirm the scriptures he had earlier revealed because he is God and therefore above his own word. The original book is after all with him in heaven.

A3. No unclean person is to touch the Qur`ân

“That this is indeed a Qur`ân most honourable, in a Book well guarded, which none shall touch but those who are clean.” Al Wâqi’ah 56:77-79

Comment:
Since the Qur`ân is the word of God only those who are clean may touch it. Clean, in this instance, refers both to an inward and an outward purity. A Muslim is therefore to practise ritual washing before touching the Qur`ân. A special stand for the Qur`ân to rest upon is desirable so that it is not held unnecessarily.

Conclusion:

Muslims consider Islam to be the original religion. Muhammad did not consider that he introduced new revelations which in some way contradicted earlier books. (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.18). The Qur`ân is presented as a copy of God’s original book: the mother book, from which all God’s books come. The Qur`ân, therefore, according to Islam, is the eternal word of God.

B. Arguments for the Divine Origin of the Qur`an

A considerable proportion of Muhammad’s activity was geared towards convincing people that he was God’s apostle and that the Qur`ân was the word of God. In reading the Qur`ân we notice a number of arguments aimed at convincing those listening that the eternal word of God was now in Arabic.

B1. The Qur`ân agrees with earlier scripture

“They say: ‘Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?’ Has not a clear sign come to them of all that was in the former Books of revelation?” Tâ Hâ 20:133

Comment:
Time after time, the Qur`ân argues its trustworthiness on the basis that it confirms earlier scripture from God, that is, the Bible.

The Qur`ân recounts part of the Bible, above all Genesis and Exodus. Otherwise there are only names or fragments from the rest of the Bible.

Is this really a sign from God? The Bible was, after all, completed over 500 years before the Qur`ân, so it is not in itself any wonder at all that Muhammad produced a book which in part likens the Bible. The Qur`ân would, on the other hand, have been a complete miracle if it could be shown that Muhammad had never had access to the biblical accounts and yet succeed in producing a book like the Qur`ân.

Islamic sources report that Muhammad, already at the age of nine to twelve, made his first journey with a trade caravan to Syria where he came in contact with Christians. We also know that on a second visit to Syria he showed great interest in the Judaism and Christianity he encountered there. He spent some time during that period with a Nestorian Christian monk named Bahirah (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, p.7, note 8)

Both Christians and Jews lived in the area. There were three Jewish tribes in Medina. Several Arabic Bedouin tribes were Christians with their own bishops. The whole population of the town of Najrân was in some way Christian. There were even some Christian mercenaries and slaves from Abyssinia in Mecca itself (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.31, 32). Waraqah Abn Nûf was a Christian from among Muhammad’s own family and was besides the cousin of Muhammad’s wife Khadijah. Waraqah and Khadijah were the first to be convinced of Muhammad’s calling to be the Apostle of Allah (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, C.32, p.9, 10). There was therefore a lot of potential for Muhammad to learn about biblical characters and accounts from both Jews and Christians.

We also know that between the ages of thirty and forty Muhammad was a religious seeker, who, for example, devoted himself to long periods of fasting and meditation. When he later received his first “revelation” at the age of forty he continued his dialogue with both Jews and Christians, something which the Qur`ân often confirms. Besides this, some Christians converted to Islam even from the outstart and later Jews as well.

In the light of the fact that people discussed the Bible virtually every day, it is not at all remarkable that Muhammad could talk about its characters and events. Those details from the Bible which are to be found in the Qur`ân are in addition of just the kind which can be easily passed on by word of mouth in story form. It should also be noted that there are quite a number of details in the Qur`ân which deviate greatly from the Bible’s accounts but which are instead to be found in the apocryphal writings and legends of Judaism and Christianity (see also B. THE QUR`AN DEVIATES FROM THE BIBLE). One gets the impression that those Jews and Christians who had informed Muhammad about their faith could not themselves have been able to tell the difference between what was biblical and what was apocryphal or pure legend. We are after all aware that this problem even exists among different Christian groups in the world today, despite literacy and printing.

B2. Jews converted to Islam

“Say: ‘See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) Truly, Allah guides not a people unjust.'” Al Ahqâf 46:10

Comment:
A number of Jews converted to Islam. However, the overwhelming majority of the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

In Medina, sharp disputes arose between the Jewish minority and the Muslims. During these disputes many Jews lost their lives, but most of them were forced into exile (see also H17. Jews who were forced to flee from Medina).

B3. The Qur`ân came in Arabic

“Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds…In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. Without doubt it is (announced) in the revealed Books of former peoples. Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)? Had We revealed it to any of the non-Arabs, and had he recited it to them, they would not have believed in it.” Al Shu’arâ` 26:192, 195-199

Comment:
The very fact that the Qur`ân came in Arabic was considered a strong argument for its being the word of God. Neither the Old nor the New Testaments had yet been translated into Arabic. Jews and Christians read their holy scriptures in foreign languages, but now material in Arabic was emerging in a form that likened the Bible and which Muhammad claimed was authenticated by the Bible. The fact that the Bible was not available in Arabic made it quite difficult for Jews and Christians to prove that the Qur`ân did indeed deviate from the Bible on a good many points, and if anyone succeeded in convincing his audience of this fact, Muhammad explained that he was either concealing the truth or had distorted the interpretation of the earlier scriptures.

B4. No-one can produce such a recital

“Or do they say, ‘He fabricated the (Message)’? Nay, they have no faith! Let them then produce a recital like unto it – if (it be) they speak the Truth!” Al Tûr 52:33-34

Comment:
Muhammad was evidently accused of fabricating the Qur`ân and he then challenged his opponents to themselves produce a similar recital, which it appears they could not (see also Al Baqarah 2:23).

The question is what they were unable to emulate. It ought not to have been the language itself since there were poets living in Mecca at that time who were acknowledged to be of great ability, Imra`ul Qays, for example (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.9). On the other hand there was certainly no-one among them able to produce a book likening the Bible in content since there was presumably no other Arabic poet in Mecca with the same depth of knowledge as regards the Jewish and Christian accounts.

Muslims often point out that the Qur`ân is written in the richest and most beautiful Arabic, and that the very language of the Qur`ân is a proof that it must be the word of God. Without doubt, most experts in the language consider the Qur`ân to be of the highest class, but at the same time there are a good number who say that old Arabic poetry exists, often older than the Qur`ân, which linguistically and stylistically is of an even higher class, for example “Al Mu’allaqât” or “Maqâmât” by Harîrî (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.264).

B5. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

“Yet they say: ‘Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner.’ And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them?..” Al ‘Ankabût 29:50-51

Comment:
In a good many places in the Qur`ân, Muhammad’s audience demands signs in order to believe in him as God’s apostle. Time after time the Qur`ân itself is pointed to as Muhammad’s sign.

Conclusion:

None of the above arguments seems particularly convincing today, but when we place ourselves in the situation which prevailed on the Arabian peninsula of the seventh century, the arguments become considerably more persuasive.

C. It is in Accordance With Earlier Revelations

This area is important since Islam teaches that the Bible is corrupted (muharraf). It is believed that Jews and Christians (called “The People of the Book” in the Qur`ân) have falsified the biblical texts so that the Bible is now a mixture of truth and lies. The question which immediately arises is of course when this alleged falsification took place. The Qur`ân itself teaches that its own text confirms the earlier revelations (the Bible) and that these scriptures were in the possession of Jews and Christians during Muhammad’s lifetime.

C1. The Qur`ân confirms earlier scriptures

“And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them.” Al Baqarah 2:89

Comment:
Here Muhammad is speaking about Jews and Christians. We can draw two important conclusions from this verse. Firstly, Muhammad believed that the Qur`ân confirmed earlier scripture from God, and secondly, Muhammad knew that these scriptures were in the possession of seventh-century Jews and Christians.

C2. The People of the Book pretended that they did not know

“And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a Party of the People of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs. As if (it had been something) they did not know!” Al Baqarah 2:101

Comment:
Muhammad considered the Qur`ân to be “confirming what was with them” (musaddiqun limâ m’ahum), in other words, the Bible. The People of the Book should therefore have confirmed that the Qur`ân was of God. Instead Muhammad held that a number of them had thrown away God’s Word and acted as if they did not know what was in the Bible.

C3. Jews and Christians studied the Bible during the time of Muhammad

“The Jews say: ‘The Christians have naught (to stand) upon’; And the Christians say: ‘The Jews have naught (to stand) upon.’ Yet they (profess to) study the (same) Book.” Al Baqarah 2:113

Comment:
Muhammad knew that Jews and Christians disagreed as to the Bible’s interpretation, but he also knew that both groups studied the same scriptures. The form of the verb “yatlûna” (translated “study”) shows that they did this in the seventh century.

C4. The Bible was studied and taught by Christians

“…’Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: for ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly.'” Âli ‘Imrân 3:79

Comment:
Muhammad was indignant about the claims of some Christians that Jesus had said to people that they were to worship him and not Allah. Muhammad considered this a lie which was not to be found in the Book (which is correct). Yet again he points to the fact that Christians had both studied and taught from the Bible and therefore ought to have known better.

C5. Jews and Christians are challenged to hold to the Bible

“Say: ‘O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.'”

Al Mâ`idah 5:68

Comment:

Muhammad is again indignant with the People of the Book for their refusal to accept that either he or the Qur`ân came from God. Since he is convinced that the Qur`ân confirms the Bible, he challenges Jews and Christians to adhere to the Bible so that they will also realise the truth about the Qur`ân. The challenge becomes meaningless if the Bible was not both available and trustworthy.

C6. Those listening are challenged to consult the People of the Book

“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.” Yûnus 10:94

Comment:
Muhammad or those listening are challenged to ask those who had read the Book earlier, the People of the Book, in order that the Qur`ân’s message be confirmed by them. This challenge becomes completely meaningless if their book was corrupted.

Conclusion:

These few verses are enough to show that Muhammad was convinced that the Qur`ân confirmed the earlier books, the Bible. That is why he boldly issues a challenge to Jews and Christians to hold to the Bible and to his audience to seek the advice of the People of the Book if they have any doubts.

We also saw how the Qur`ân confirms that the earlier scriptures existed during Muhammad’s time. They were read, studied and taught by Jews and Christians. Muhammad presupposes that the People of the Book know the Bible and he can therefore not understand why Jews and Christians do not receive him as God’s messenger and the Qur`ân as God’s word.

An answer to the question of when the Bible was corrupted becomes therefore impossible:

• It cannot have taken place before the Qur`ân since the Qur`ân challenges both Christians and Jews to hold to the Bible and challenges people to consult the People of the Book if they have any doubts about the Qur`ân. The Bible must therefore have been reliable even in Muhammad’s time.

• It cannot have taken place after the Qur`ân since we have about 4000 manuscripts of the New Testament dating back to the time before Muhammad (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, McDowell, Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972, p.46).

All prominent textual critics agree that the Bible we have today is essentially identical with the Bible of the seventh century.

D. The Qur`an is Positive Towards the People of the Book

In most of the earlier suras it can be seen that Muhammad sets out with a positive attitude towards the People of the Book, that is to say, Jews and Christians. This is quite a natural position since he assumed that the Qur`ân really did confirm the Bible. It was only later that the Qur`ân attacked the People of the Book, when the majority of Jews and Christians neither accepted Muhammad as a prophet nor the Qur`ân as the word of God. For this reason we find both verses which are positive and verses which are negative towards the People of the Book, depending on the situation.

D1. The Jews received God’s book and the task of preserving it

“It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s Will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto…” Al Mâ`idah 5:44

Comment:
The Qur`ân confessed the Pentateuch, the Books of Moses. The Books of Moses recorded God’s laws and standards as a foundation and guide from God. Also on this same foundation spoke the prophets of the Old Testament. All this, according to the Qur`ân, was put together into God’s book, which was the code for the Jews. Jewish rabbis and scholars also acted on the basis of this book. They had also been entrusted with the task of preserving and protecting (istahfaza) God’s book.

D2. Jews are challenged to hold to the Book

“…And they study what is in the Book. But best for the righteous is the Home in the Hereafter. Will ye not understand? As to those who hold fast by the Book and establish Regular Prayer – never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to perish.” Al A’râf 7:169-170

Comment:
The Qur`ân promises those Jews who hold to the Old Testament and the prayers that they will have a share in eternal life, which shows that Muhammad considered their foundation to be the right one but that many of them did not live in accordance with the Bible.

D3. Jews and Christians need not fear judgement

“Those who believe (in the Qur`ân), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” Al Mâ`idah 5:69

Comment:
This verse seems to be saying that provided that Jews and Christians follow their own faith, they will go to heaven and have no need of fearing judgement. Only the problem is that in a number of other verses one must also believe in the Qur`ân as the word of God and Muhammad as God’s messenger (2:40-41, 3:31, 4:150-151, 7:157, 33:40, 61:6). It is remarkable that the Sabeans are named together with Muslims, Jews and Christians since they represented the idolatry practised in the area (see O6. Idolaters were to become Muslims or be executed).

D4. Jesus’ disciples were true believers

“And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger; they said, ‘We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims.'” Al Mâ`idah 5:111

Comment:
The Qur`ân confesses that Jesus’ disciples were true believers (see also Âli ‘Imrân 3:52). It was these disciples who wrote down the Gospel and the events surrounding Jesus. They were eye-witnesses to Jesus’ death and resurrection. They were also responsible for the spreading of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. This seemingly obvious point is necessary since Islam teaches that the Bible has been corrupted by Jews and Christians (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.17). But how would it at all be theoretically possible to carry out such a corruption of the New Testament after the Gospel had been spread out over great areas? So the questions of when, how, who and why remain regarding Islam’s unproved accusations against the Bible.

D5. Jesus’ followers will be made superior to those who reject faith

“Behold! Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:55

Comment:
Regarding Jesus’ death I will comment on this verse later (see G11. Has Jesus died after all?). But it is interesting that Jesus’ followers are mentioned sufficiently positively to receive a higher position than the unfaithful.

Conclusion:

The Qur`ân makes quite a number of positive statements about both Jews and Christians. This is natural if we think of Muhammad’s positive attitude towards their Book, the Bible. Unfortunately it must be said that the Qur`ân also makes a great many negative statements levelled against local Jews and Christians because they neither accept Muhammad nor the Qur`ân.

E. The Qur`an Deviates from the Bible

Muhammad claims that the Qur`ân confirms earlier scriptures. But an accustomed reader of the Bible will see quite quickly that there are a great number of details in the Qur`ân’s accounts that noticeably deviate from the Bible. I am able here, of course, to touch upon only a part of the material. There are besides this some examples that are to be found outside biblical history. As regards the Qur`ân’s teaching on Jesus, I will discuss this more fully in a separate chapter. I have given the examples in a somewhat chronological order based on the Bible’s chronology.

E1. Cain, Abel and the raven

“Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.” Al Mâ`idah 5:31

Comment:
There is not one word to be found about a raven in the biblical account of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-16). Where did Muhammad find out about the raven that helps with Abel’s burial?

One could contend that God revealed this new detail. But it is nevertheless worth noting that this detail about the raven is mentioned in a Jewish legend about Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel which is found in “Pirke Rabbi Eliazer” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.15).

E2. The wives of Noah and Pharaoh

“Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous Servants, but they were false to their (husbands)…

And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: behold she said: ‘O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings…” Al Tahrîm 66:10-11

Comment:
The problem is that the Bible does not say anything about either Noah’s wife being a bad example or Pharaoh’s wife being a good example.

E3. Abraham’s father

“Lo! Abraham said to his father Âzar…” Al An’âm 6:74

Comment:
According to Genesis 11:26, Abraham’s (Abram’s) father is called Terah. Names can indeed change from one language to another but the difference in this case is genuinely great.

E4. Abraham refuses to worship idols

“Behold! he said to his father and his people ‘What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?'” Al Anbiyâ` 21:52

Comment:
In Sura Al Anbiyâ` 21:51-75 we can read quite a long dialogue between Abraham and his contemporaries in which he argues against idolatry and for belief in the one true God. It is not in itself incredible that Abraham had discussions with his contemporaries, and what Abraham says is in itself correct, but not a single word of this dialogue is to be found in the Bible.

E5. Abraham and the red-hot furnace

“They said, ‘Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!'” Al Sâffât 37:97

Comment:
Several places in the Qur`ân describe how idol worshippers were angered by Abraham’s arguments against their idolatry and his teaching on the one true God. On more than one occasion we can read how they prepared a type of red-hot oven into which they threw Abraham. But God saves Abraham from the blazing furnace.

The account is colourful; it is reminiscent of when God saved Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from the fiery furnace in Daniel 3. The problem is that Abraham’s being cast into a burning oven is to be found not in the Bible, but in the Jewish book “Midrash Rabbah” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.16). One gets the impression that Muhammad did not know what came from the Bible and what came from extrabiblical sources.

E6. Abraham and the Kaaba

“Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): ‘Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round…'” Al Hajj 22:26

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, Abraham received the Kaaba from God in Mecca as a holy place for worship. There are no sources or historical evidence at all, either in the Bible or anywhere else, confirming that Abraham had ever been in Mecca. Besides this, according to Islam, Abraham and his son Ishmael built the original Kaaba.

We know that the Kaaba was the holy place for the “Sabeans”, whose religion was in Mecca before Islam (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.30). The black stone which is walked round and kissed, as well as many other rites performed during the pilgrimage, were part of the earlier religion and were retained within Islam. In the early days of Islam, Allah was worshipped facing Jerusalem, but later, after one year and four months in Medina (the year 623), the direction of prayer was changed to the Kaaba in Mecca instead (2:142-143 and The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 141).

E7. Joseph and Potiphar’s wife

“When she heard of their malicious talk, she sent for them and prepared a banquet for them: she gave each of them a knife: and she said (to Joseph), ‘Come out before them.’ When they saw him, they did extol him, and (in their amazement) cut their hands: they said, ‘Allah preserve us! no mortal is this! This is none other than a noble angel!'” Yûsuf 12:31

Comment:
It is true that the Bible tells us about Potiphar’s wife trying to seduce Joseph (Genesis 39:1-20). But there is no banquet where the women invited each receive a knife and, on the arrival of the handsome Joseph, begin to shout and cut themselves in the hands, either to prevent themselves if possible from committing the same sin as Potiphar’s wife or because they had completely lost their sense of coordination during the meal.

E8. Moses adopted by Pharaoh’s wife

“The wife of Pharaoh said: ‘(Here is) a joy of the eye, for me and for thee: slay him not. It may be that he will be of use to us, or we may adopt him as a son.’…” Al Qasas 28:9

Comment:
The Qur`ân’s version of how Moses came to Pharaoh’s court agrees with the Bible’s, except on one point. In the Qur`ân it is Pharaoh’s wife who adopts Moses, whereas in the Bible it is Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:10).

E9. Moses and an unknown person’s peculiar journey

“Behold, Moses said to his attendant, ‘I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel.'” Al Kahf 18:60

Comment:
This passage of the Qur`ân (18:60-82) is about a strange journey made by Moses and unknown man. The unknown man, acting by order of God, scuttles a boat, slays a young man and sets a wall up straight. Then the man explains to Moses why he has performed these actions. There turned out to be a deeper, unfathomable reason which the impatient Moses was not at first able to understand.

This is another interesting legend which completely lacks biblical support.

E10. Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh and his magicians

“…Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! Be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm trees…” Tâ Hâ 20:71

Comment:
Pharaoh’s magicians had realised that God’s power was greater than their own. Then Pharaoh threatened to have them crucified and cut off their hands and feet. There is nothing about this in Exodus.

It is worth noting that neither crucifixion nor mutilation were practised in ancient Egypt, something of which Muhammad was obviously not aware. The practices themselves, however, were known to Muhammad, who himself prescribed this very punishment for those who opposed Islam (Sura Al Mâ`idah 5:33).

E11. Pharaoh and Haman

“Pharaoh said: ‘O Hâmân! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means – the ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the God of Moses…'” Ghâfir 40:36-37

Comment:
Who was this Haman, who was called upon to build Pharaoh an enormous palace so that he could ascend all the way up to the God of Moses?

Haman is mentioned in several places in the Qur`ân together with Pharaoh. One gets the impression that Muhammad believed him to be something akin to a Prime Minister to Pharaoh.

There is not one word of either Pharaoh’s fantastic building plans or of any Haman in Exodus. The Bible, however, tells the story of a certain Haman who was as good as Prime Minister in Persia under King Xerxes (Esther 3:1). Could it be a case of mistaken identity for Muhammad?

E12. Mount Sinai hovering over the children of Israel in the desert

“When We shook the Mount over them, as if it had been a canopy, and they thought it was going to fall on them…” Al A’râf 7:171

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that when Moses and the children of Israel were at Mount Sinai, the whole mountain lifted up from the ground and floated above their heads like a giant roof.

It is true that Exodus 19:16-19 tells us of great manifestations of God’s presence on the mountain in the form of thunder and lightning, fire, smoke, loud noise and an earthquake. But there is not one single word about the whole of Mount Sinai hovering about in the air.

E13. Moses, Aaron, the golden calf and Al Samiri

“(Allah) said: ‘We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Sâmirî has led them astray.'” Tâ Hâ 20:85

“…and that was what the Sâmirî suggested. Then he brought out (of the fire) before the (people) the image of a calf: it seemed too low: so they said: ‘This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten!'” Tâ Hâ 20:87-88

Comment:
A detailed account of Moses, Aaron and the golden calf is given in the Bible (Exodus 32:1-35). It clearly states that Aaron, urgently requested by the people, made a golden calf with his own hands and said, “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” But in the Qur`ân it is Al Sâmirî who both led the people astray and produced the calf while Aaron is largely innocent. In verse 20:97 where Al Sâmirî was rebuked by Moses, he was told that the ashes of his idol would be scattered at sea.

Who then is this Al Sâmirî, who is not mentioned at all in Exodus? Has Muhammad simply made up a name out of thin air?

There is a strained connection between Al Sâmirî and a golden calf in the Bible. The name “Al Sâmirî” quite simply means “the Samaritan” in Arabic. After the death of King Solomon in 932 BC, Israel was divided into two kingdoms. In time Samaria became the capital of the northern kingdom, a city which was founded in around 875 BC, hundreds of years after Moses and Aaron (Bibelfakta i färg, Libris, 1986, p.272 = Encyclopedia of the Bible, Lion Publishing).The first king in the north was Jeroboam. He had two golden calves made and said, “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” (1Kings 12:25-31), which is what Aaron had said several hundred years earlier. Can it be that Muhammad got the golden calves mixed up, even though they are separated by several hundred years, and therefore speaks about the Samaritan who made a golden calf?

The Samaritans as an ethnic people arose much later, after the Assyrians had defeated the northern kingdom and carried off the people into captivity in 722 BC. The Israelites remaining in the area became mixed with other peoples, and so the “Samaritans” were formed. For this reason we can exclude the possibility that an ethnic Samaritan could have been with Aaron and made a golden calf.

E14. Miriam and the Virgin Mary

“And Mary the daughter of ‘Imrân, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth…” Al Tahrîm 66:12

“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” Maryam 19:28

Comment:
As we can see, the Qur`ân claims that the father of the Virgin Mary was called Imran. The New Testament does not say what Mary’s father was called. Where then does Muhammad get Imran?

It can be worth mentioning that “Mary” and Moses’ sister “Miriam” are identical names in Arabic, “Maryam”. It is therefore possible to get these two Maryams confused. We know that Aaron, Moses and Miriam’s father was called Amram (1 Chronicles 6:3), deceptively similar to Imran, in other words. It can well be a case of mistaken identity.

The second verse (19:28) tells us that the Virgin Mary has just given birth to the baby Jesus and how people begin to call in question Mary’s purity and virginity. At this, the new-born Jesus speaks in defence of his mother.

Again one gets the impression that Muhammad has mixed up the two “Maryams”, that is to say Miriam (Aaron and Moses’ sister) and the Virgin Mary. The Bible gives no details about the brothers of the Virgin Mary. However, we do know that Miriam, who lived more than a thousand years before Mary, was Aaron’s sister (Exodus 15:20).

E15. Tâlût (Saul) and Gideon

“When Tâlût set forth with the armies, he said: ‘Allah will test you at the stream; if any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army; only those who taste not of it go with me; a mere sip out of the hand is excused’…” Al Baqarah 2:249

Comment:
Tâlût is identified as King Saul (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 284). The Bible says nothing about Saul’s army being tested in this way. It is however almost exactly the same as the description of how Gideon’s army was tested (Judges 7:4-6). We can scarcely conclude other than that Muhammad once more has mixed up events and people.

E16. The wise Solomon

“And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: ‘ O ye people! We have been taught the speech of Birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)’ And before Solomon were marshalled His hosts – of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: ‘O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it.’ So he smiled, amused at its speech; and he said:…” Al Naml 27:16-19

“He said (to his own men): ‘Ye Chiefs! which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?’…Said one who had knowledge of the Book: ‘I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of any eye!’ Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, he said:…” Al Naml 27:38-40

“She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.'” Al Naml 27:44

Comment:
It is true that there is a lot in the Bible about Solomon’s wisdom and palace in 1 Kings 1-11, but the Qur`ân’s version of Solomon abounds in remarkable and fantastic details of which there is no trace in the Bible, for instance:

• Solomon can speak with birds (v.16).

• Solomon’s army is made up of people, jinn and birds (v.17).

• The ants talk with each other and Solomon understands their conversation (v. 18-19).

• A bird, called “Al Hudhud”, tells Solomon what is happening in Sheba where a queen rules on a great throne (v.20-26).

• “Al Hudhud” is commissioned to fly with a message to the queen of Sheba, who eventually decides to visit Solomon (v. 27-37).

• Before the queen arrives in Jerusalem, Solomon asks his court if there is anyone who can arrange for the queen’s throne to move from Sheba (Yemen) to Jerusalem before she gets there, whereupon someone in the court conjures up the queen’s throne in the twinkle of an eye (v. 38-40).

• Solomon now orders that the queen’s throne be supernaturally altered, almost beyond recognition, in order to test the queen (v. 41-42).

• When the queen enters Solomon’s palace she believes that the floor is made of water! So she lifts her skirts, thereby uncovering her legs. Solomon is then quick to inform her that the floor is only made of glass (v. 44).

From where has Muhammad got this version with talking birds and ants, a flying throne and a palace with a glass floor that looks like water?

There is nothing about this in the Bible, but there is in the Jewish book “II Targum of the Book of Esther”, (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.24).

Once again it seems that Muhammad has heard the Jewish legend but not realised that none of its peculiar details in any way belongs to the Bible, and in this way the whole account came to be in the Qur`ân.

E17. Dhu al Qarnayn (Alexander the Great)

“They ask thee concerning Dhu al Qarnayn. Say, ‘I will rehearse to you something of his story.'” Al Kahf 18:83

Comment:
Who is this Dhu al Qarnayn (the name means “the Lord of the two Horns”), described in Sura 18:83-101?

In Appendix VI of “The Holy Qur`ân, Ali”, page 738, we read “Now the generality of the world of Islam have accepted Alexander the Great as the one meant by the epithet Dhu al Qarnayn.” Ali goes on to give his personal opinion on page 740, “Personally, I have not the least doubt that Dhu al Qarnayn is meant to be Alexander the Great.”

The problem is that this idolater is described in the text as a true believer (Sura 18:86, 95, 98).

We may quite simply conclude that Muhammad did not know that Alexander was an idolater, but actually believed that he instead had a real faith in the one true God.

E18. The Virgin Mary and Zechariah

“Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty; to the care of Zakarîya was she assigned…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:37

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was instructed to bring up Mary. There is not a word of this in the Bible. It is however to be found in an apocryphal Christian book in Arabic, “History of our holy Father the Aged, the Carpenter”, (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.53). Once again one gets the impression that Muhammad could not tell the difference between that which came from Holy Scripture and that from extrabiblical sources.

E19. Zechariah was struck dumb

“He said: ‘O my Lord! Give me a Sign!’ ‘Thy Sign,’ was the answer, ‘shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals…'” Âli ‘Imrân 3:41

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, Zechariah asks God for a sign that he will have son. God’s sign was that Zechariah would be struck dumb for three days. According to Luke 1:18-20, Zechariah was struck dumb because of his unbelief, and according to Luke 1:59-64, his speechless state lasted until after the birth of his son, i.e. for nine months.

Once again Muhammad fails to give accurate details in his attempt to reproduce the biblical material.

E20. Mary gives birth to Jesus

“So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: she cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!'” Maryam 19:22-23

Comment:
The whole of this portrayal of Jesus’ birth under a palm tree in Sura 19, which ends in the new-born Jesus giving a speech of defence, contains many details not found in the accounts of Matthew 1 and Luke 1-2. However, many of the Qur`ân’s details are to be found in various apocryphal Christian books. In the apocryphal Arabic book, “The Gospel of the Infancy” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.58) we can read that the new-born Jesus could speak.

Once more it seems that Muhammad did not distinguish between biblical and extrabiblical material.

E21. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad’…” Al Saff 61:6

Comment:
Muslims often ask if we are aware of this prophecy about Muhammad. (Muhammad and Ahmad come from the same root word in Arabic). There is not a single quotation of Jesus in the Bible in which he predicts the coming of Muhammad or Ahmad. The only one whose coming Jesus foretold is the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-26, 15:26, 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8). The Spirit did indeed come upon the disciples at Pentecost as Jesus had promised (Acts 2:1-4).

E22. Jesus is merely human

“Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger…” Al Mâ`idah 5:75

“And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah”?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say)…'” Al Mâ`idah 5:116

“Say: ‘If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship.'” Al Zukhruf 43:81

“Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.” Al Ikhlâs 112:2-4

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that Jesus, who was certainly born of a virgin, was only human. The Qur`ân also categorically denies that God revealed himself in Jesus and that Jesus was the Son of God.

Regarding the Bible’s claim that Jesus was the Son of God, Muhammad has completely misunderstood the implications of the biblical term. Within Islam the expression is understood literally and physically, that is to say that God is to have had sex with Mary and had a son by her. The Christian Trinity in the Qur`ân is therefore the Father, Mary and their son Jesus. By this Muhammad understands that Christians worship three gods, of whom two are mere humans!

E23. Jesus has never died

“That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not – nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Al Nisâ` 4:157-158

Comment:
Thus the Qur`ân denies Jesus’ crucifixion and death (see also G10. Jesus has never died).

E24. The sleepers in the cave

“Or dost thou reflect that the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription were wonders among Our Signs?” Al Kahf 18:9

“Thou wouldst have deemed them awake, whilst they were asleep, and We turned them on their right and on their left sides: their dog stretching forth his two forelegs on the threshold…” Al Kahf 18:18

“So they stayed in their Cave three hundred years, and (some) add nine (more).” Al Kahf 18:25.

Comment:
In Sura 18:9-26 we read about some men who slept for over three hundred years in a cave. God saw to it that they were turned on their right and their left sides while they slept. They were able to sleep in safety since they had a dog with them guarding the entrance to the cave. After this marathon sleep they woke up and thought that they had only slept for one day or a few hours. But they had actually slept for 309 years. Now where does all this come from?

It is a case of an old legend which is to be found in, among other sources, the book “Story of Martyrs” written in Latin by Gregory of Tours (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.48).

The remarkable thing is that Muhammad does not realise that it is a legend, but even gives the exact length of time the men were in the cave, 309 years.

Conclusion:

When we see all these deviations, confusions of people and events, mixes of extrabiblical material with the biblical text, we see a picture of Muhammad getting his information to a large extent from Jews and Christians who themselves did not know what belonged to the Bible, what was pure legend and what was a mixture of the two. In the light of this it was obviously difficult, if not impossible, for Muhammad himself to sort out what really belonged to Holy Scripture. As we have seen earlier he was nevertheless completely convinced that the Qur`ân agreed with previous revelations.

Islam assumes the Qur`ân to be God’s infallible word which came to Muhammad through direct dictation by the angel Gabriel. If the Qur`ân on point after point shows itself to have a human origin, then the whole of Islam, which is based on this assumption, falls.

F. Christians and Jews Have Falsified the Bible

It is, as we have seen, quite easy to discover that the Qur`ân deviates from the Bible on a good many points. The question which quite quickly arises is whether both books can be true even though they sometimes contradict each other.

In time there were a lot of discussions in both Mecca and Medina about Muhammad himself and the Qur`ân as the word of God. Muhammad, as we have previously seen, persisted in his claim that the Qur`ân did indeed confirm the earlier revelations from God, the Bible. A problem arose when the majority of Jews and Christians did not receive Muhammad as God’s messenger. Muhammad then issued different accusations and claims about his opponents.

F1. The People of the Book have different opinions about the Bible

“We certainly gave the Book to Moses, but differences arose therein…” Hûd 11:110

Comment:
Here Muhammad levels no criticism at Scripture, but against the People of the Book, who have different interpretations of Scripture. This observation appears again and again in the Qur`ân. If we are to be honest the same phenomenon still exists today, namely that Christians and Jews interpret Scripture differently, both from each other and among themselves.

F2. Christians deliberately distort the Bible

“There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the Prophetic Office, should say to people: ‘Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah’s’…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:78-79

Comment:
Here Muhammad is speaking against a smaller group of Christians who claimed that Jesus told people to worship him instead of God. We know that Jesus never said anything like this in the Bible. If a group of Christians really did make such an erroneous claim, then Muhammad is right in saying that they intentionally or unintentionally distorted the Bible. Once again the criticism is of a smaller group of Christians and not against the Bible.

F3. Jews falsify the Word of God

“And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price!” Al Baqarah 2:78-79

Comment:
Here Muhammad is speaking against a group of Jews in Medina. He claims that they had illiterates among them who did not know Scripture. We do not know a great deal about the Jews living in Medina, but it is possible that some of them indeed were illiterate and had never studied the word of God.

He then accuses some other Jews of having written the Scripture themselves and claimed that the book was the word of God. And besides, this writing was on sale for a very low price. Remarkably, it was for just this that Muhammad’s opponents accused him. It would be extremely interesting to have the opportunity to study the book which Muhammad attacks as false. It is not out of the question that it is a case of an Arabic translation of, for example, parts of the Pentateuch with the strong recommendation that people discover for themselves what we have already seen, that the Qur`ân again and again deviates from the Bible.

Unfortunately we will have to be content with stating once again that if it was the case that some Jews in Medina wrote their own version of the Old Testament, this was of course indefensible.

F4. God himself alters his book

“Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.” Al Ra’d 13:39

Comment:
This remarkable claim, that God should alter and make deletions in his own word, becomes intelligible if someone had really confronted Muhammad with all the Qur`ân’s deviations from the Bible.

However, this claim is still quite contrary to the teaching of Jesus:

“It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” Luke 16:17

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Luke 21:33

F5. God replaces old Qur`ân verses with better ones

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar…” Al Baqarah 2:106

“When We substitute one revelation for another – and Allah knows best what he reveals (in stages) – they say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: but most of them understand not.” Al Nahl 16:101

Comment:
These verses are about Qur`ân verses (`âya) which have been annulled or been forgotten. It seems that a number of suras were changed little by little. Muhammad’s opponents noticed the problem and accused Muhammad of fabricating his revelations. The Muslims however were reassured that these replacements and changes were all part of God’s plan and came from him.

From these Qur`ân verses is derived the doctrine of “replacement” (nasakha). In short this doctrine says that if two Qur`ân verses contradict each other, the newer verse is valid. According to Islam’s scholars (‘Ulama), there are 225 Qur`ân verses which have been replaced with others (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.57).

Conclusion:

Nowhere in the Qur`ân does Muhammad attack the Bible, which he, on the contrary, esteems. The Qur`ân teaches that the People of the Book had these writings. He also believes that the Qur`ân confirms these earlier revelations. On the other hand, he accuses local Christians and Jews of intentionally distorting the Bible in their interpretations and expositions. The teaching that Christians and Jews had falsified the Bible itself took a decidedly firmer form when Islam, shortly after Muhammad’s death, was spread in the Christian world and it was shown on comparison that the Qur`ân did indeed deviate from the Bible on quite a number of points. Since the Qur`ân, according to Islam, was held to be the infallible word of God, the Bible came to be seen as a falsification, a mixture of truth and lies. That it should be the other way round was considered to be completely out of the question.

During the whole of the Qur`ân’s period of emergence Muhammad claimed that the Qur`ân confirmed the Bible and thereby must be true. After this period Muslims claim that the Bible does not confirm the Qur`ân and therefore cannot be true.

G. Jesus in the Qur`an

Muslims often say that they believe in Jesus Christ and ask, a little surprised, why we do not believe in Muhammad. For this reason it is interesting to find out who Jesus is in the Qur`ân. The crucial difference between Islam and the Christian faith has to do with Jesus Christ. What is the true identity of the one born of a virgin? Why was he born into the world at all?

G1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary

“And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.” Al Anbiyâ` 21:91

Comment:
Thus the Qur`ân confirms the virgin birth, that Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit, and that this miracle was a sign for the whole world.

G2. Mary and the baby Jesus were given shelter on a hill

“And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” Al Mu`minûn 23:50

Comment:
After the birth Mary needed to withdraw and rest. God arranged a place of refuge for them on a hill with a spring. Where Joseph was, the Qur`ân does not say.

G3. Jesus is the Word of God and the Spirit of God

“…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and his Messengers. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God. Glory be to Him. (Far Exalted is He) above having a son…” Al Nisâ` 4:171

Comment:
In this Qur`ân verse Jesus bears the highly-charged names the “Word of God” and “a Spirit proceeding from him”. Both expressions refer to when Mary became pregnant through a miracle of God. But so that there will be no misunderstanding of the Qur`ân’s teaching on Jesus, the expression is preceded by an assurance that Jesus is merely the apostle of God, like Muhammad and many others. Besides this, the verse continues with an attack against the Trinity and an assertion that God does not have a son.

G4. Jesus is created like Adam

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’: and he was.” Âli ‘Imrân 3:59

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that Jesus is merely human. Islam draws no other conclusions from Mary’s conceiving through the Spirit of God than that Jesus was created just like Adam.

G5. The miracles of Jesus in the Qur`ân

“I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: and I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:49

Comment:
The Qur`ân admits that Jesus performed miracles, but only with God’s permission and help. That Jesus created a bird from clay, in approximately the same way as God had created mankind, does not appear in the Bible, but in the apocryphal book “The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.57).

G6. Jesus received the Gospel from God

“…We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel…” Al Hadîd 57:27

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that Jesus received the Gospel (al Injîl) from God. The word always appears in the singular in the Qur`ân and is understood by Muslims to be a single book dictated to Jesus, in approximately the same way as it is believed that the Qur`ân was dictated to Muhammad. It is for this reason that Muslims are often surprised when they encounter the “Four Gospels”, which were written by Jesus’ disciples, and the simple narrative form. This fact is often considered to be evidence that the Bible really has been falsified and the original “al Injîl” been lost.

G7. God has never begotten anyone

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten, and there is none like unto Him.” Al Ikhlâs 112:1-4

Comment:
This sura expresses the most important doctrine in the Qur`ân, the teaching on God’s oneness (tawhîd). The Qur`ân rejects every notion of trinity as irreconcilable with the doctrine of the one true God. God has never fathered any son, full stop.

G8. God has no son

“Say: ‘If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship.” Al Zukhruf 43:81

Comment:
Muhammad presupposes that it is completely unthinkable for God to have a son and therefore puts himself forward as the first worshipper of this son, who according to the Qur`ân cannot exist.

G9. Jesus denies the Trinity

“And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah”?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say).” Al Mâ`idah 5:116

Comment:
One can only wonder where these remarkable ideas come from. It is completely alien to the Bible and therefore the Christian faith that Jesus should have put forward worship of himself and Mary as an alternative to God. The verse also shows that Muhammad believed that the Christian Trinity included the Virgin Mary instead of the Spirit of God. What then should Muhammad have believed? He did, after all, see “Christians” bow the knee and worship before statues and pictures of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus. Muhammad saw this as erroneous and incompatible with faith in the one true God.

The Bible instead teaches:

• that God, who is one God, reveals himself in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Christian baptism takes place therefore in the name of the triune God. (Matthew 28:19-20)

• that Jesus Christ is true God and true human in the same person (John 1:1, 14)

• that the term “the Son of God” is spiritual, not physical (John 1:18, 14:6-11)

G10. Jesus has never died

“That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety, they killed him not – nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself, and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Al Nisâ` 4:157-158

Comment:
Here the Qur`ân truly contradicts the Bible! Already in the prophecies of the Old Testament we read that the Messiah would have to suffer and die for the sin of mankind (Isaiah 53). Large parts of the Gospels and remaining New Testament deal with Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. In the Bible we have eyewitnesses to his death and resurrection. Almost all of Jesus’ apostles gave their lives and were killed when they gave testimony to precisely this.

It is true that there are a number of different explanations for these Qur`ân verses, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Qur`ânic commentators teaches that Jesus Christ has never been crucified or died. It is written: “but so it was made to appear to them.”

The teaching is that God took Jesus up to heaven before the crucifixion, and that someone else was transformed to look like Jesus. So the wrong person was arrested and the wrong person crucified! And the one behind this gigantic bluff was God himself. In doing this, he allowed all the disciples, and even Mary, Jesus’ own mother, to believe that it was Jesus being crucified, though in actual fact it was “so it was made to appear to them.”

From where has Muhammad got this remarkable idea?

It is plausible to believe that the “Christians” Muhammad spoke with about Jesus’ crucifixion and death were in fact influenced by Gnosticism, which mixed Hellenism and Christianity. The Gnostics believed in the kingdoms of light and darkness, with all that is spiritual, for example the human soul and spirit, belonging to the kingdom of light, and all matter, the human body for example, belonging to the kingdom of darkness. The world of light was created by a good God while the world of darkness was created by an evil God. This led to the false teaching that Jesus did not have, as we do, a physical body, but instead a type of spiritual pseudo-body. His suffering and death on the cross became thereby a meaningless quasi-death. A number of Gnostics, for example Basilides who was operative in Alexandria between 120 and 140 AD, even went as far as denying that Jesus had ever died on the cross.

He taught:

“…Nevertheless, when the unbegotten , unutterable Father witnessed their depravation, he sent his first-born Nous – it is he who is called Christ – in order to release those who believe in him from the power of those who created the world. However, for the people of the Archons he appeared on earth as a human who performed miracles. Therefore he did not suffer, but instead a certain Simon from Cyrene who was forced to bear the cross for him. Because of ignorance and delusion he was crucified since he had been transformed by Christ so that it would be believed that he (Simon) was Jesus. But Jesus himself assumed the appearance of Simon, stood alongside and laughed in ridicule at them (the Archons and their people). For because he was an incorporeal force and the unbegotten Father’s Nous, he could assume every form at will and thus he ascended to him who had sent him. In that he ridiculed them since he could not be held down and was invisible to all. For this reason, those who know this are released from the creators of the world, the Archons. And one does not need to profess the one crucified, but instead the one who came in human form and was seemingly crucified, called Jesus…” (Jesus till Moder Teresa, Tergel, Verbum, 1973, p.29).

If we assume that the “Christians” who informed Muhammad were in fact influenced by Gnosticism, we can then understand how Muhammad could produce a verse which in principle contradicts the whole New Testament.

G11. Has Jesus died after all?

“Those of you who die and leave widows…” Al Baqarah 2:240

“…And I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them…” Al Mâ`idah 5:117

“Behold! Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself…'” Âli ‘Imrân 3:55

“So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!” Maryam 19:33

Comment:
In Sura 2:240 it is written “Those of you who die (yutawaffûn)…”, and the word must mean “die” since the word refers to widows.

The same root word is used about Jesus in 3:55 “…take thee (mutawaffîka).” According to “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic”, “mutawaffan” means “deceased, dead”. The same root word is even used by Jesus when he says to God in 5:117 “..thou didst take me up (tawaffaytanî). According to Hans Wehr “tuwuffîya” means “to die”.

Things do not become much clearer when the new-born Jesus speaks in Sura 19:33 of the three great and unique days in his life on earth, according to the Bible, namely his unique birth, death and resurrection.

All authorised Qur`ânic commentators have chosen, however, to read these verses in the light of 4:157 “But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them.” Note again that Ali renders the Arabic words “thou didst take me up” and “I will take thee.”

As regards the traditional interpretation of the baby Jesus’ words about his future death and resurrection, these are explained by saying that Jesus will one day return to the world. It is then that he will die and rise like all other normal mortals.

G12. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad…” Al Saff 61:6

Comment:
In this verse are named the Qur`ân’s two most important reasons for the coming of Jesus to the world. He came partly in order to, like Muhammad, confirm God’s earlier revelations, the Pentateuch, and partly to prophesy that Muhammad would come. Ahmed and Muhammad are namely two forms of the same root word in Arabic.

Muslims often ask if we are aware of this prophecy. Unfortunately, there is not a single quotation of Jesus in the Bible where he predicts Muhammad’s coming. The only one Jesus said would come was the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-26, 15:26, 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8).

The Spirit did indeed come upon the disciples at Pentecost as Jesus had promised (Acts 2:1-4).

Conclusion:

Even though the Qur`ân contains almost no material which comes directly from the New Testament, there are quite a number of facts about Jesus which agree with the New Testament, for instance, the virgin birth, that he performed great miracles, that his book is called the Gospel, that he was the Messiah, God’s apostle, and so on.

There are also a great number of departures from the New Testament. The most serious deviations are, of course, that the Qur`ân denies the deity of Jesus, his death on the cross and thereby atonement in its entirety. The idea that God has reconciled the whole world to himself in Christ does not exist in Islam. Jesus is not a Saviour, he is not a mediator between God and man. He is merely a prophet like Moses or Muhammad. The problem from a Christian perspective is that if one takes away the deity of Jesus and his death for our sins, there is no longer any Gospel left. But this is precisely the Qur`ân’s message about Jesus.

H. Muhammad in the Qur`an

The Islamic creed is as follows:

There is no God but Allah.

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

Muhammad is not only God’s messenger, he is also the seal on the whole office of apostleship. After him come no further apostles and no more revelations.

The following is a list of some important years and events in the life of Muhammad:

570Muhammad’s birth. His father, ‘Abdallah, had already died.576His mother, Âmînah, dies when Muhammad is six years old. He goes to live with his paternal grandfather, ‘Abd Al-Muttalib, and later with his paternal uncle, Abû Tâlib.579At around the age of nine to twelve Muhammad travels for the first time with a caravan to Syria. There he receives his first deep impressions of the People of the Book.593At 23 years of age Muhammad takes on the work of caravan driver to a rich widow called Khadijah. He shows great interest in the People of the Book in Syria, where he spends time with a Christian monk named Bahîrah.595At the age of 25 Muhammad marries the rich Khadijah, at the time, around forty years old. He gains a respectable status in Mecca. In time Muhammad becomes a religious seeker, devoting himself, among other things, to periods of secluded fasting and meditation. The question of monotheism becomes important for Muhammad. Who is Allah? His own father, whom he had never met, was called, incidentally, ‘Abdallah (servant of Allah).610At forty years of age Muhammad receives his first “revelation” on Mount Hira outside Mecca after a long period of solitary fasting. He experienced the angel Gabriel embracing him forcefully and three times commanding him to read, “Iqra`!”It was a harrowing experience for Muhammad. He went home and told his wife, Khadijah, everything. He sensed darkness and fear, enough to make his whole body shake and feel cold. He himself doubted that the “revelation” could be from God. But Khadijah comforted him and succeeded with the help of her Christian cousin, Waraqah, in convincing the doubting Muhammad that he really was chosen to be the apostle of God. Muhammad began his service in Mecca and met with great resistance, both to himself and his teaching. It took about three years for the next “revelation” to come. After that they came a good deal more frequently.616The persecution of the few Muslims in Mecca becomes even greater and some are forced to flee to Abyssinia.622This is year nought in Islamic chronology. Muhammad and around 150 Muslims move because of persecution to Yathrib (present-day Medina). This event is known as “The Flight” or “The Hegira” (Al Hijra). Many in Medina receive Muhammad as a prophet from God. Under Muhammad’s leadership Muslims begin to carry out plundering expeditions against both armed trade caravans and various Bedouin tribes. But above all continues the conflict against Quraysh, Muhammad’s own clan, which ruled Mecca. Islam expands. The majority of Jews in Medina reject Muhammad as a prophet from God. Muhammad, after a revelation during his second year in Medina, changes the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. The first Jewish family, Banû Qaynuqa’, is expelled to Syria in the year 3 AH (624). The second Jewish family, Banû Nadîr, is forced into exile in the year 4 AH (625) after having had to pay with their property and possessions for safe-conduct out of the area. Most badly fare the last remaining Jewish family, “Banû Quraiza”. The men (about 600 in number) are executed while the women and children become slaves.630Muhammad occupies Mecca without a battle with an army of 10,000 men. He destroys the idols at the Kaaba in Mecca, but retains many of the old religion’s rites, especially those performed during pilgrimage. Muhammad consolidates his position as ruler of the Arabian peninsula.632Muhammad dies and is buried in Medina.

Now as we turn to the Qur`ân in order to find out something about this remarkable man, we realise that we cannot gain a deeper knowledge about his life from there, apart from a few details. A complete picture of him requires an in-depth study of the Hadîth (the tradition), which contains everything Muhammad said and did.

H1. The Muslim is to obey God and Muhammad

“The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: ‘Woe to us! would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!'” Al Ahzâb 33:66

“…He that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest Achievement.” Al Ahzâb 33:71

Comment:
Islam requires not only submission to God but also to Muhammad. This exhortation to obey God and his apostle recurs many times in the Qur`ân (see also Sura Al Nûr 24:51-54). Many Westerners are surprised by the fact that the “Hadîth” (the tradition) possesses divine authority in Islam. In the Hadîth is all that Muhammad said and did on different occasions (this is usually called Muhammad’s “sunna”). But in the light of the Qur`ân’s repeated exhortations to the Muslim to obey Muhammad, the authority of the Hadîth is fully understandable.

H2. Muhammad, the seal of the prophets

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the prophets…” Al Ahzâb 33:40

Comment:
The expression “the seal of the prophets” means that Muhammad is the last prophet and that the office of prophetship ended with him. The Qur`ân is therefore, according to Islam, God’s definitive revelation.

H3. Muhammad performed no signs

“They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) Sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: ‘Certainly (all) Signs are in the power of Allah: but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) Signs came, they will not believe?” Al An’âm 6:109

Comment:
The fact that Muhammad did not perform any miracles is often the subject of discussion in the Qur`ân. Muhammad never conceals this fact, but points repeatedly to the Qur`ân as God’s sign.

H4. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

“Yet they say: ‘Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner.’ And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them?..” Al ‘Ankabût 29:50-51

Comment:
The Qur`ân is unequivocal on this point. Muhammad performed no signs, but the Qur`ân was to be God’s sign.

H5. Muhammad saw Gabriel twice

“While he was in the highest part of the horizon: then he approached and came closer, and was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer.” Al Najm 53:7-9

“For indeed he saw him at a second descent.” Al Najm 53:13

Comment:
These Qur`ân verses are about the angel Gabriel. According to “The Holy Qur`ân, Ali”, note 5092, Muhammad saw the angel Gabriel on two occasions, once at his call to service and again here when Gabriel revealed himself at a distance. Ali considers this second occasion to be in connection with the journey by night from Mecca to the temple in Jerusalem (see next point).

H6. Muhammad’s nocturnal journey to Jerusalem

“Glory to (Allah) who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless – in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).” Al Isrâ`17:1

Comment:
The Qur`ân claims that Muhammad flew away from the Kaaba in Mecca to the temple in Jerusalem. According to Ibn Ishâq, ‘Aishah, one of Muhammad’s wives, said that Muhammad’s body was not absent during the nocturnal journey. And besides, there are no details in the Qur`ân about what Muhammad saw or what it looked like at the temple in Jerusalem. Was Muhammad even aware that no temple remained, but only some ruins, the Wailing Wall, for example?

In the Hadîth are different versions of what Muhammad saw and experienced during his journey, which, together with the angel Gabriel, was made on the back of a horse called Burâq. According to one Hadîth which goes back to Ibn Ishâq and is recounted in the book “Sirat Ibn Hishâm”, Muhammad encountered Abraham, Moses and Jesus and other prophets in the temple in Jerusalem, where he led them in the worship of Allah. Neither in this Hadîth do we get the impression that there was in fact no temple in Jerusalem during the seventh century.

According to another Hadîth which goes back to Qutâda and is found in the book “Miskât al Masâbîh”, Muhammad made a journey with the angel Gabriel’s help through seven different heavens and met different prophets in the different heavens. John the Baptist and Jesus were already to be found in the second heaven, while Abraham, for example, was highest, in the seventh heaven. After this Muhammad and Gabriel continued to paradise itself, which is described as a beautiful garden. (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, pp 76-82; Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.44).

H7. Muhammad was accused of being a false prophet

“‘Nay,’ they say, ‘(these are) medleys of dreams! – Nay, he forged it! – Nay, he is (but) a poet! Let him then bring us a Sign like the ones that were sent to (Prophets) of old!'” Al Anbiyâ` 21:5

Comment:
This is a sample of the different types of accusation which Muhammad met with, and there are a good deal more of the same kind in the Qur`ân.

H8. Muhammad was accused like all other prophets

“Similarly, no messenger came to the Peoples before them, but they said (of him) in like manner, ‘A sorcerer, or one possessed’!” Al Dhâriyât 51:52

Comment:
Muhammad points out the fact that it was quite normal for prophets to meet with resistance from their contemporaries. In other words, he considered himself in good company when he encountered various accusations. Only the problem was that this moderate stance changed when he himself had gained greater power. His opponents then had to be careful if they wanted to avoid punishment.

H9. Muhammad’s right to unlimited marriages

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her – this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large)…” Al Ahzâb 33:50

Comment:
Normal Muslims were given the right to have four wives at the same time. But Muhammad had at his disposal an unlimited number of marriages because he was God’s apostle. Regarding women taken as prisoners of war, it was not necessary to follow the laws of marriage since they had been given by Allah as booty. The verse continues namely as follows “We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess…” (33:50). The expression “mâ malakat aymânuhum” (that which their right hand possesses) in the Qur`ân most often refers to prisoners of war or booty, as it has also been defined earlier in the passage. In reality these women became slaves, a terrible fate, in other words, for the other side’s women if they were conquered by the Islamic army. This fact is confirmed by the well-known Hadîth compiler, Al Baidawi. (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.328).

H10. Muhammad was prohibited from marrying again

“It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens)…” Al Ahzâb 33:52

Comment:
This ban on marriage came in the year 7AH (629 AD) when Muhammad was already 59 years old and with nine wives still alive. (In total he had eleven wives and two concubines). It seems undeniably the case that Muhammad had had enough, although he reserved the right to take from among the slaves, something which he in fact took advantage of when he took his servant, the Copt Mary, as a concubine (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 3754).

H11. Muhammad could bypass the order of wives

“Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of the eyes…” Al Ahzâb 33:51

Comment:
Obviously all his wives began to clamour if Muhammad disregarded the order. He had to namely spend the night with each of them in turn. But Allah had a simple solution to the problem. He revealed to Muhammad that he was quite simply made exempt from this.

H12. Muhammad could break inconvenient promises

“O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths…” Al Tahrîm 66:1-2

Comment:
Clearly Muhammad had promised his different wives things which became difficult to keep long-term. This problem, too, was solved with a revelation which said that the promises could quite simply be broken.

H13. Muhammad married his adopted son’s former wife

“Behold! thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: ‘Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.’ But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zayd had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee…” Al Ahzâb 33:37

Comment:
According to two well-known Qur`ânic commentators and Hadîth compilers, Al Baidawi (volume 2, p.129) and Al Jalâlân (commentary of 33:37), Muhammad took a liking to Zainab after having joined her in wedlock with his adopted son, Zayd. They became aware of this situation. When problems arose between them, Muhammad said to Zayd, “Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.” But Zayd nevertheless divorced Zainab, and Muhammad was then called by Allah to marry his adopted son’s former wife (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.331).

This was not the only controversial marriage Muhammad entered into. He married ‘Aishah when she was seven years old and he began to spend the night with her when she was nine or ten years old according to Ibn Hishâm, volume 3, p.94; Ibn Athîr, volume 2, p.117, 118; Mishkât Al Masâbîh, p.262, 272 (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.329).

H14. Threat of divorce because of gossip

“When the Prophet disclosed a matter of confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him…” Al Tahrîm 66:3

“It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you…” Al Tahrîm 66:5

Comment:
One of Muhammad’s wives clearly enjoyed telling people the latest news. There were certainly a lot of people interested in listening to the latest gossip about what the prophet had said. But God spoke to the wives through the prophet and threatened them with divorce. Besides this, God threatened to give Muhammad even better wives instead of those who were not careful.

H15. Promise of blessing for lowering the voice

“O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not. Those that lower their voice in the presence of Allah’s Messenger – their hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.” Al Hujurât 49:2-3

Comment:
It seems that it was taxing for Muhammad if someone had too loud a voice. Allah noticed the problem and sent down these verses, which in short amount to people having to be less vociferous than the prophet if they did not want to forfeit forgiveness and rewards.

H16. No-one could stay too long with Muhammad

“O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses – until leave is given you – for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth.” Al Ahzâb 33:53

Comment:
Muhammad clearly thought it was tiresome with people who only wanted to talk and take a long time when they visited. He himself was too shy to tell them. But Allah came to the rescue with a revelation giving clear instructions as to what was what in Muhammad’s house.

H17. Jews who were forced to flee from Medina

“It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering…” Al Hashr 59:2

“And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them, he would certainly have punished them in this world: and in the Hereafter they shall (certainly) have the Punishment of the Fire. That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if anyone resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment.” Al Hashr 59:3-4

Comment:
This exile affected a rich Jewish family in Medina called Banû Nadîr in the year 4 AH (626 AD). They could count themselves fortunate to have escaped with their lives, which was not the case for the men of the last Jewish family in Medina, “Banû Quraiza.” They were executed in the year 5 AH, while the women and children became slaves. According to Islamic sources it was six to seven hundred men who were executed by beheading (Sîrat Al Rasûl, part 2, p.148, 75; Kitâb Al Maghâzî, Wâqidî, p.125, 126; Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p. 332-333; Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.53).

H18. Muhammad decided over Jewish booty

“…So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment.” Al Hashr 59:7

Comment:
The rich Jewish family Banû Nadîr owned an area of houses and orchards outside Medina called Fadak. Muhammad himself with his family seized these properties in exchange for the Banû Nadîr’s safe-conduct out of the country. Fadak was later given to Muhammad’s daughter Fatma as a gift and inheritance. The first Caliph Abu Bakr cited a Hadîth (which he alone heard) which meant that children of the prophet would not receive any inheritance, and thereby Fatma was declared to be without inheritance, upon which Abu Bakr himself took over the property Fadak. The property later became the cause of feuds within the family for several generations (Nahjul Balagha, Reza, Tahrike Tarsile Qur`ân Inc, 1978, p.517-529).

So Muhammad thought that he should take the largest portion of the booty from this well-to-do Jewish family, Banû Nadîr. It was therefore quite fitting that Allah instructed Muslims about suitable conduct, namely that they were allowed to keep whatever they were given. There was no point complaining “for Allah is strict in punishment.”

Conclusion:

We cannot avoid noticing how close Muhammad came in certain situations to abusing his position. He seemed to receive a great deal of his revelations when he had a personal problem or need or could secure himself certain privileges. When we read about these circumstantial solutions to Muhammad’s personal problems it is difficult to understand how just these Qur`ân verses could be eternal so that they were in the presence of God before he created the world.

The sometimes almost inconceivable cruelty and the many remarkable relationships with women give a mystifying picture of this remarkable man who called himself God’s apostle.

I. The Foundational Beliefs of Islam

There are many teachings to be found in the Qur`ân, some more manifest than others, and later on they have naturally been systematised and compiled to form one body of doctrine. I have touched upon a number of these teachings in other chapters, and I will therefore only list the articles of belief, as well as write a little about the most important doctrine in the Qur`ân: Allah, the one true God.

I1. The articles of Islamic belief

“…But it is righteousness – to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers…” Al Baqarah 2:177

Comment:
This verse gives five of the six articles of belief, which are usually listed in the following order:

1.Allah:the one true God2.Angels:Archangels, lesser angels, jinn3.The Scriptures:Tawrâh (the Pentateuch), Zabûr (the Psalms), Injîl (the Gospel) and the Qur`ân. The first three are understood to be falsified and a mixture of truth and lies, while the Qur`ân is God’s definitive revelation.4.The Prophets:Many of the Bible’s prophets, as well as some others. Muhammad is the final prophet.5.Destiny:All that happens is decided in advance by God. It is written (maktub) before it has taken place.6.The Day of Judgement:Everyone will give account (hisâb) before God, and it will be decided if a person is to go to paradise or to hell.

I2. The doctrine of the one true God

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.” Al Ikhlâs 112:1-4

Comment:
No doctrine in the Qur`ân is more important than that about the one true God. It is the very foundation of the witness: “There is no god but Allah.” The greatest sin in Islam is for this reason “shirk” (to make someone or something equal with God), (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.11). The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is, according to Islam, incompatible with the teaching that God is one.

I3. God has no son

“Say: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion…” Al Isrâ` 17:111

Comment:
The Qur`ân completely denies the notion that God should have a son. In the Qur`ân, the Trinity is shown to be the Father, Mary and their son Jesus. The term “the Son of God” is understood literally within Islam, physically, not spiritually.

As regards the expression that God has no “partner”, the Arabic word is “sharîkun” from which the term “shirk” comes.

I4. The ninety-nine most beautiful names of Allah

“Allah is He, than Whom there is no other God – Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god – the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, The Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to Allah! (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him. He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms, (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” Al Hashr 59:22-24

Comment:
As Christians we notice that in principle all the names are biblical and are fitting for the God of the Bible. The expression “God is love”, of course, is missing, but on the other hand there are many other similar attributes which describe what the Bible means by love.

The expression “to him belong the most beautiful names” (lahu al-asmâ` al husnâ) is the foundation of the teaching on the ninety-nine beautiful names of Allah. These are the ninety-nine attributes ascribed to Allah in the Qur`ân. The Islamic “rosary” is based on the ninety-nine names. It has ninety-nine, thirty-three or eleven beads. For a complete list of the ninety-nine names see “Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.14.”

Conclusion:

These six points represent the foundational beliefs of Islam. Parallel to belief (`îmân) comes the practice of religion (dîn), which I will discuss in the next chapter.

J. The Five Pillars of Islam

The five pillars describe how God wants Muslims to practise their faith. Islam understands the relationship with God more or less like a treaty with certain conditions and promises. If a person fulfils his side then God will fulfil his.

J1. The witness

“And your God is One God: there is no god but He…” Al Baqarah 2:163

Comment:
A Muslim must declare the following witness: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his apostle. Remarkably, this witness is not to be found word for word in the Qur`ân. There are, however, many verses with the same content.

With every call to prayer in the mosque, the witness is cried out. It is also a part of the ritual prayers, which are prayed five times a day.

J2. The prayers

” And establish regular prayers at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of the night…” Hûd 11:114

“O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say – nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body…” Al Nisâ` 4:43

“O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah…” Al Jumu’ah 62:9

Comment:
There is no verse which expressly mentions the five times of prayer each day, even if Sura Hûd 11:114 can be interpreted in this way (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 1616, 1617). The one praying must be sober and clean. The ritual washings before prayer are very important in Islam.

The most important time of prayer is at midday on Friday, the Muslim’s holy day.

J3. The fast

“…And seek what Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you, distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears…” Al Baqarah 2:187

Comment:
The fast is commanded during the whole month of Ramadan. The fast is from when the sun goes up until it goes down. The fast is absolute, that is to say, no food or drink is allowed. At night, however, both eating and drinking are allowed. Islam is a religion based on good works. A Muslim sees the fast as an important part of his efforts to reach heaven.

J4. The alms

“And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship).” Al Baqarah 2:43

“Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to the Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah, and for the wayfarer…” Al Tawbah 9:60

Comment:
In many different Qur`ân verses the Muslim is exhorted to give something to the poor. In this way no poor person need starve in Islamic society (dâr al islâm). This is also the reason why beggars are relatively common in many Islamic countries today. It is worth noting that alms could also be used to help and encourage people who were either close to conversion or had recently converted to Islam. Alms could also be used “in the cause of Allah”, which in the Qur`ân generally means those who fight for Allah, but can also refer to others in the service of Islam.

J5. The pilgrimage

“And complete the Hajj or Umrah in the service of Allah…” Al Baqarah 2:196

Comment:
Every Muslim for whom it is possible is to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his life. It may be interesting to know that several of the religious rites a Muslim performs during the pilgrimage had been retained by Muhammad from the earlier Sabean religion in Mecca (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.296). Muslims believe that the pilgrimage has a purifying effect so that God forgives many sins because of the journey. Without a doubt, it is believed that the pilgrimage weighs a great deal on the scales on the Day of Judgement.

“‘Umra” (lesser pilgrimage) is a journey to Mecca outside the official period of pilgrimage. All of the rites of the real pilgrimage need not be performed either.

Conclusion:

Islam is a religion based on belief and good works. The Muslim sees the five pillars more or less like a treaty with different conditions and promises. If a person meets his side of the agreement, God will be gracious and merciful on the Day of Judgement and allow the Muslim to enter paradise. The Muslim who does not perform his religious duties can be doomed to hell. But everything takes place in accordance with God’s will, and God is gracious and merciful towards all Muslims. Besides this, tradition says that Muhammad will pray for all Muslims on the Day of Judgement. Thus even those Muslims who have not performed their duties have a certain hope of getting to paradise after all.

K. Judgement and Grace

Judgement is a very large subject in the Qur`ân. Since Jesus Christ has never died, neither does reconciliation in Christ exist. The Qur`ân’s teaching on “judgement and grace” is therefore somewhat unlike that of the New Testament.

K1. Two angels record people’s deeds

“Behold, two (guardian angels) appointed to learn (his doings) learn (and note them), one sitting on the right and one on the left.” Qâf 50:17

Comment:
According to Islam, there are two angels following every person, one sitting on the right shoulder and the other on the left. The angel on the right shoulder notes all good deeds, while the other angel notes all evil deeds. On the day of reckoning (yûm al hisâb) when a person gives account for his life, the two angels report everything he has done. The good deeds are placed on the right-hand dish of the scales and the evil deeds on the left. And depending on which way the scales tip a person will go to paradise or hell. Everything, nevertheless, takes place in accordance with the will of Allah, and he is gracious and merciful to all Muslims. Besides this, Muhammad prays for all Muslims on the Day of Judgement, and this of course increases the Muslim’s chances of getting into paradise.

K2. All deeds are written down

“All that they do is noted in (their) Books (of Deeds): every matter, small and great, is a record.” Al Qamar 54:52-53

Comment:
These verses confirm that everything is recorded. This documentation is prepared by the two angels sitting on people’s shoulders.

K3. A person is chained to his eternal destiny

“Every man’s fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgement We shall bring out for him a scroll, which he will see spread open.” Al Isrâ` 17:13

Comment:
No-one can escape the life he leads. What a person has done is, so to speak, chained round his neck, and on the Day of Judgement the verdict comes.

K4. The scales decide paradise and hell

“Then, he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) heavy, will be in a Life of good pleasure and satisfaction. But he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) light – will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. And what will explain to Thee what this is? (It is) a Fire blazing fiercely!” Al Qâri’ah 101:6-11

Comment:
At the Day of Judgement all a person’s deeds are placed on the scales, and depending on the verdict, the person is sentenced to paradise or hell.

K5. If God were to judge justly everyone would perish

“If Allah were to punish men for their wrongdoing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term. When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).” Al Nahl 16:61

Comment:
It is solely because of God’s mercy that any human life at all continues to exist on earth. If God were to punish every sin then every single human being would have perished long ago.

This verse is similar to the Bible’s teaching on our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam, which results in all humans sinning. The difference is, however, that according to Islam, humans sin because God created humans weak and not because of Adam and Eve’s fall (see Sura Nisâ` 4:27-28 “Allah doth wish to turn to you, but the wish of those who follow their lusts is that ye should turn away (from Him) – far, far away. Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): for man was created weak (in flesh).”

K6. One good deed outweighs ten evil deeds

“He that doeth good shall have ten times as much to his credit: he that doeth evil shall only be recompensed according to his evil…” Al An’âm 6:160

Comment:
Humans are sinners who have the tendency to do more evil than good. This problem is ingeniously solved by saying that one good deed cancels out ten evil ones. If someone prays once he can, in theory, sin ten times and still be even.

Here the Bible and the Qur`ân differ. According to the Bible, the sinner stands in debt before God until he has received grace and forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).

K7. God forgives those who turn in repentance

“…Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them…” Ghâfir 40:7-8

Comment:
Here is an example of the type of prayer the Muslim expects Muhammad will pray on the Day of Judgement. The Qur`ân speaks of forgiveness for the one who repents; if God wills, that person will be forgiven. But the person cannot be sure.

A passage like this could equally well have come from the Bible. Jesus also spoke often about repentance as the condition for forgiveness, as for example in the parable of “the prodigal son”, Luke 15:11-32.

Repentance and faith the Bible says are, before God, a person’s responsibility. But the difference between the Qur`ân and the Bible lies partly in what a person is to believe in and partly in what God has done, that God in Christ has reconciled the whole world to himself. He thus offers a person forgiveness and salvation through Christ. This reconciliation, which the Bible says is the very foundation upon which forgiveness stands, is not to be found at all in Islam.

K8. God will fill hell

“…But the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.'” Al Sajdah 32:13

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, hell will be completely full of jinn and humans. What is meant by “all together” we can only wonder.

K9. No grace in hell

“If, then, they have patience, the Fire will be a Home for them! And if they beg to be received into favour into favour will they not (then) be received.” Fussilat 41:24

Comment:
The Qur`ân says that there is no grace to be found for the one in hell. See also Sura Al Jinn 72:23 “…For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger – for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein forever.” The Bible also speaks of an eternal punishment.

Conclusion:

According to the Qur`ân, humans sin because God created them weak and not because they have inherited Adam’s sinful nature. Thus, humans are not born sinners in need of reconciliation with God, but they instead have the capacity in themselves to obey God and do what God expects, and in this way to come to paradise.

The Qur`ân speaks a lot about judgement. This judgement is based on a person’s deeds, good and evil. If a persons repents God will forgive that person’s sins if he so wills. But the person cannot be sure of this.

The Bible says, however, that God acts according to his character and his Word, and therefore a person’s sin will lead to punishment. The wages of sin are, as we know, death (both physical and spiritual), Romans 6:23. Since the God of the Bible keeps to his Word but at the same time loves humans, Christ had to sacrifice himself by bearing their guilt and punishment, in order to thus reconcile them with God. The believer can therefore be assured of God’s forgiveness in Christ. All this is done away with in Islam.

L. Paradise and Hell

At first glance it may seem that the Bible’s heaven and the Qur`ân’s paradise are identical since they both refer to the glory a believer comes to after death.

L1. Paradise is before God’s throne

“Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah) and those around it sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore Forgiveness for those who believe…” Ghâfir 40:7

Comment:
Exactly as in the Bible, believers gather around God’s throne to worship him.

L2. Paradise for husbands and wives

“Enter ye the Garden, ye and your wives, in (beauty and) rejoicing.” Al Zukhruf 43:70

Comment:
Men can take their wives to paradise. Exactly what situation the wives will be in while their husbands are entertaining themselves with other exquisitely beautiful women in paradise is not described.

L3. Paradise contains all that could please the eye

“To them will be passed round, dishes and goblets of gold: there will be there all that the souls could desire, all that the eyes could delight in…” Al Zukhruf 43:71

Comment:
The Qur`ân describes paradise as a beautiful green garden. There is to be found everything that could please the human eye. Paradise in the Qur`ân is therefore a sensual paradise. The problem is, however, that Muhammad carries the thought of everything pleasing the eye right through to the extreme, even to things forbidden on earth. See also Suras 37:42-49 and 56:11-38.

L4. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

“In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?” Al Rahmân 55:56-57

“In them will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty. Then which..?” Al Rahmân 55:70-77

Comment:
The Qur`ân says that there will be an unknown number of exquisitely beautiful women (hûrun) in paradise. These virgins, says Muhammad, will satisfy the men in paradise. Remarkable, of course, is that this orgy is strictly forbidden on earth, but clearly not in the paradise of the Qur`ân.

We can ask ourselves where the wife’s place is in all this. But when we give thought to the fact that a Muslim had the right to four wives plus possible slave women as concubines and that Muhammad himself had the right to an unlimited number of wives on earth, Muhammad’s idea of paradise becomes less far-fetched.

This sensual, sexual understanding of paradise is alien to the Bible. Jesus instead taught: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” Matthew 22:30.

L5. People drink wine in paradise

“Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed: the seal thereof will be Musk: and for this let those aspire, who have aspirations.” Al Mutaffifîn 83:25-26

Comment:
In many Qur`ân verses it is described how believers will drink wine in paradise which will not intoxicate them. Remarkably, drinking wine is strictly forbidden in Islam, but obviously not in the paradise of the Qur`ân.

L6. Hell is a place of eternal torment

“Truly Hell is as a place of ambush – for the transgressors a place of destination: they will dwell therein for ages. Nothing cool shall they taste therein, nor any drink, save a boiling fluid and a fluid, dark, murky, intensely cold.” Al Naba` 78:21-25

Comment:
The Qur`ân says that all unrepentant sinners will go to hell, a place of fire and indescribable torment. There they will rue their defiance and regret not having listened to Allah and his apostle Muhammad. See also Sura Al Jinn 72:23 “…For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger – for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein forever.”

L7. The food of hell

“Verily the tree of Zaqqûm will be the food of the Sinful – like molten brass; it will boil in their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.” Al Dukhân 44:43-46

Comment:
Even the food of hell is described as a terrible torment. It is difficult to imagine something worse than molten brass boiling in the stomach.

L8. Fire and boiling water in hell

“(A voice will cry): ‘Seize ye him and drag him into the midst of the Blazing Fire!’ Then pour over his head the Penalty of Boiling Water.” Al Dukhân 44:47-48

Comment:
The Qur`ân describes hell in the most cruel terms thinkable. First a person is dragged into the very centre of the fire, and then boiling water is poured over his head.

L9. Disobedience towards Allah and Muhammad is regretted in hell

“The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: ‘Woe to us! would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!” Al Ahzâb 33:66

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that those who have rejected Muhammad as the messenger of Allah will regret it when their faces are fried in the fire of hell.

Conclusion:

The Qur`ân gives detailed descriptions of paradise and hell. Muhammad made use of the most savage pictures imaginable in describing hell, while portraying a sensual paradise for those who became Muslims.

There are certain similarities in the Bible’s description of paradise and hell. The central difference lies, as we have seen, in that the Qur`ân places emphasis upon a sensual paradise, while the Bible’s emphasis is on the presence of God and his holiness and glory. According to the Bible, it is our personal relationship with God himself that is of central importance. This difference is quite logical since it is precisely this which characterises Islam and the Christian faith here and now. Traditional Islam does not teach that a person comes near to God in a personal, intimate relationship, as with a father and his beloved child, but rather that a person believes in God and serves him at a respectful distance, with not a little fear.

The heart of the Christian faith is that God himself comes to us in Jesus Christ, that God in Christ reconciles people with himself through Christ’s sacrifice. As the apostle Paul said, “But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ” Ephesians 2:13. Besides this, the Bible teaches that God has let his own Spirit make his dwelling in the one who believes in Jesus Christ. In the light of this, the Bible’s emphasis on closeness to God himself in paradise is completely logical.

M. Jinn, Angels and Mysticism

The Qur`ân presents us with concepts of supernatural beings unknown to the Bible. Certainly, angels are also given important tasks in the Bible, but the term “jinn”, however, is not to be found, its closest biblical counterpart being demons. Remarkably, according to the Qur`ân there are both good and evil jinn.

It is otherwise in what is known as “folk Islam” that we see the occult in full-scale.

For a more thorough study of the subject I recommend “The Unseen Face of Islam, Musk, Monarch Publications, 1989.”

M1. The jinn were created from fire

“And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.” Al Hijr 15:27

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that these spirit beings were created out of the fire of a hot wind. What then exactly are jinn?

Abdullah Yusuf Ali teaches the following about jinn: “… I think, from a collation and study of the Quranic passages, that the meaning is simply ‘a spirit’, or a hidden force… Both the Qur`ân and the Hadîth describe the Jinn as a definite species of living beings. They are created out of fire and are like man, may believe or disbelieve, accept or reject guidance. The authoritative Islamic texts show that they are not merely a hidden force, or a spirit. They are personalized beings who enjoy a certain amount of free will and thus will be called to account” (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 929).

M2. Some jinn are righteous

“There are among us some that are righteous, and some the contrary: we follow divergent paths.” Al Jinn 72:11

Comment:
In this sura the jinn speak in the “we”-form. They explain, among other things, that some of them were righteous and some evil.

M3. Jinn repent and preach to others

“Behold, We turned towards thee a company of Jinns (quietly) listening to the Qur`ân: when they stood in the presence thereof, they said, ‘Listen in silence!’ When the (reading) was finished, they returned to their people, to warn (them of their sins). They said, ‘O our people! We have heard a Book revealed after Moses, confirming what came before it…O our people, hearken to the one who invites (you) to Allah, and believe in him: He will forgive you your faults, and deliver you from a Penalty Grievous.” Al Ahqâf 46:29-31

Comment:
God reveals to Muhammad that he had allowed some jinn to eavesdrop when he recited the Qur`ân. The result was not long in coming. The jinn noticed that the Qur`ân confirmed the Pentateuch. When Muhammad had finished speaking, the jinn returned to their own kind and called other jinn to listen to Muhammad and repent.

M4. Jinn believe in the Qur`ân

“Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur`ân). They said, ‘We have really heard a wonderful Recital!” Al Jinn 72:1

Comment:
Another verse saying that God had revealed to Muhammad that jinn had secretly heard the Qur`ân, and they were, to say the least, delighted with what they heard.

M5. Evil jinn are the fuel of hell

“But those who swerve – they are (but) fuel for Hell-fire.” Al Jinn 72:15

Comment:
The verse is about jinn. The majority of jinn are evil, and the Qur`ân teaches that hell will be filled with humans and jinn. (“…But the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.'” Sura Al Sajdah 32:13).

The jinn will then serve as extra fuel on the fire.

M6. All angels fell down before Adam except the devil

“When We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves to Adam’, they prostrated themselves, but not Iblîs: he refused.” Tâ Hâ 20:116

Comment:
This verse comes up many times in the Qur`ân. God obviously had commanded the angels to fall down before Adam. But Iblis, the devil, was disobedient towards God and refused.

The verse is noteworthy because the verb “asjudû” (fallen down) also indicates worship. According to “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic” the verb “sajada” means “to bow down, to bow in worship, to prostrate, to worship.” In this case, God commanded the angels remarkably to fall down in worship before Adam. The whole story becomes even more remarkable when Iblis (the Devil) quite rightly refuses to fall down in worship before Adam. Iblis’ sin lies nevertheless in his disobedience of Allah’s command.

In the Qur`ân, almost all angels are good. They carry out God’s commands of justice and mercy. The archangels Gabriel and Michael are mentioned by name in Sura Al Baqarah 2:98.

M7. The angels Harut and Marut taught evil

“They followed what the evil ones gave out (falsely) against the power of Solomon: the blasphemers were, not Solomon, but the evil ones, teaching men magic, and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Hârût and Mârût. But neither of these taught anyone (such things) without saying: ‘We are only for trial; so do not blaspheme.’ They learned from them the means to sow discord between man and wife…” Al Baqarah 2:102

Comment:
It is not clear from the context who these evil ones were or who the angels Hârût and Mârût were. The evil ones (Al Shayâtîn) taught magic which they in their turn had learned from the angels Hârût and Mârût. These angels seem to have warned people that they were tests, before they taught the evil.

M8. Shooting stars chase away evil spirits

“We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars – (for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil sprits, (so) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming Fire, of piercing brightness.” Al Sâffât 37:6-10

Comment:
This remarkable thought is about evil spirits trying to listen to what is said at God’s throne. But they are normally held in check by all the stars(!) Sometimes, however, an evil spirit manages to get loose and catch one or two words, but then he is immediately pursued by a shower of shooting stars.

One can quietly wonder over what kind of cosmology Muhammad had.

M9. God gave Solomon demonic power

“Then We subjected the Wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed – as also the evil ones…” Sâd 38:36-37

Comment:
This passage lists a number of things over which Solomon was given power and which he also made use of. He thus received power over the wind and over the evil spirits (Al Shayâtîn). According to Suras 27:17 and 34:12-13, jinn made up part of Solomon’s army, and also constructed buildings, images, large basins etc for him.

In Sura 27:39, one of the jinn, an “‘Ifrît”, or a demon, offers his powers to Solomon when he says that he can get him the queen of Sheba’s throne in an instant: “Said an ‘Ifrit of the Jinns: I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council: indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted.” We read in “The Holy Qur`ân, Ali”, note 3274, “‘Ifrît: a large, powerful Jinn, reputed to be wicked and crafty…” Thus it seems, according to the Qur`ân, that Solomon availed himself of both good and evil jinn.

M10. Heaven is opened during the night of power

“The Night of Power is better than a thousand Months. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allahs permission, on every errand.” Al Qadr 97:3-4

Comment:
Muslims usually believe that ” Leylat al qadr” (the night of power), the night Muhammad received his first revelation, falls on the 23rd, 25th or the 27th of the fast month of Ramadan. It is believed that heaven is open for a short time on this night, in such a way that the one who prays during that time receives answers to prayer from God.

No-one can know with certainty either the day or time for “Leylat al qadr”, and therefore many Muslims usually pray for several nights towards the end of the month of Ramadan in the hope of receiving an answer to prayer.

Conclusion:

As we have seen, the Qur`ân contains a great many mystical details about jinn and Shayâtîn (evil ones) which could either be classed as pure superstition or in biblical terminology as demonic.

Suras 113 and 114 are used by Muslims as a safeguard against different forms of magic and necromancy, which is, incidentally, a normal occurrence in the Muslim world.

Dr. Musk considers that it is verses just like the ones quoted here that have opened the way for the exceedingly large amount of superstition and magic that flourishes within folk Islam (The Unseen Face of Islam, Musk; Monarch Publications, 1989, p.224).

N. Jihad

Many Westerners see “Jihâd” as exactly the same as a “holy war.” But even though Jihâd includes such a war, the word has a much wider meaning. The word comes from the verb “jahada” which has the following definition according to “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic”: “to endeavour, strive, labour, take pains, overwork, fatigue, etc.” So the word “Jihâd” actually means to struggle and strive to the utmost.

Islamic fundamentalism is gaining influence and is today making its voice heard more and more. Among these groups “Jihâd” is considered a religious duty for all true Muslims, that is to say, a sixth pillar of Islam. “Jihâd” is often given a literal and militant interpretation.

In his book on Islamic fundamentalism Dr. Musk writes: “A purely ‘spiritual’ or ‘liberal’ approach to the Qur`ân in exegesis is unacceptable to the reformist muslim. We have seen his insistence upon literalism demonstrated in many situations with regard to the duty of jihâd or ‘holy war’. According to the Islamists, one cannot talk of ‘higher’ or ‘spiritual’ jihâd, a kind of war against the world, the flesh and the devil. That is not what the Qur`ân and sunna refer to. One has to face up to the reality of armed conflict. Such is the literal meaning of jihâd in the source texts.” (Passionate Believing, Musk, Monarch Publications, 1992, p.185). It is therefore of interest to see what the Qur`ân teaches on “Jihâd.”

N1. Jihâd in the cause of God

“Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).” Al Tawbah 9:20

Comment:
This verse describes the broader meaning of Jihâd which is that a person completely spends himself in the cause of Allah. The Arabic has “wa jahadu fi sabîl Allah” (“and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause”). There is also to be found here the promise of special blessing for the Muslim who sacrifices himself for God in this way.

N2. Holy war

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter…” Al Baqarah 2:190-191

Comment:
The expression “fight in the cause of Allah” is very common in the Qur`ân since Muslims found themselves in many battles during the expansion in Medina. These wars were considered holy wars for God (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.50). The verse seems to say that Muslims are never to attack an enemy. But in reality all who actively opposed Muhammad and Islam came to be seen as enemies which had to be fought against. It is these opponents who are to be killed wherever they are found, and it is their tumult and oppression which are worse than slaughter, that is to say, their negative influence on people was such that it even justified killing them.

N3. Idolaters were to be killed if they did not become Muslims

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Al Tawbah 9:5

Comment:
Muhammad pronounced these judgements over idolaters towards the end of his work, when the Muslims were in a clear majority in the area. They were to be fought against and killed wherever they were encountered. Only conversion to Islam could save their lives.

N4. Combat all non-Muslims

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Al Tawbah 9:29

Comment:
Earlier in this sura Muhammad explains what idolaters had in store, namely the choice between conversion and death. Regarding the People of the Book, that is to say, Jews and Christians, they were allowed to exist in Islamic society (dâr al islâm) on certain conditions. They were to be fought into submission and then willingly pay a special personal tax (Jizya), which only applied to them.

N5. Paradise awaits those who die in Jihâd

“And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die or are slain, Lo! it is unto Allah that ye are brought together.” Âli ‘Imrân 3:157-158

Comment:
There are several clear promises in the Qur`ân that those who die in the cause of God will be allowed to go to him. Islam teaches that God forgives all the sins of those who die in Jihâd. They are thereby guaranteed a place in paradise.

N6. Cowardly soldiers are punished with hell

“If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) – he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell – an evil refuge (indeed)!” Al Anfâl 8:16

Comment:
Deserters or those who fled from battle in fear could feel certain that they would go to hell. This also applied to those who refused to even go out to war.

N7. The spoils of war

“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good…” Al Anfâl 8:69

Comment:
It was a very lucrative business plundering a defeated enemy. It was not material possessions alone that Muslims were allowed to plunder but they could also take women and children as slaves. Of these women, the Muslim could then take concubines in addition to the four wives he had the right to (see Sura Al Ahzâb 33:50).

N8. Muhammad’s share of the spoils

“And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah – and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer…” Al Anfâl 8:41

Comment:
Muhammad had the right to one fifth of the spoils, which he then divided among his relatives and other needs.

Conclusion:

In studying the subject of “Jihâd” in the Qur`ân we find partly the broader, more general definition and partly the meaning of a militant holy war against Islam’s opponents. Without doubt Muhammad’s attitude towards his opponents became all the more violent the greater the political power he gained. All were to be defeated in God’s war. Idolaters were to be exterminated or become Muslims. The only ones tolerated were Jews and Christians who allowed themselves to be completely subjugated and willingly paid their special tax.

It was every healthy male Muslim’s duty to participate in the holy war against Islam’s opponents. Those who did so were, in the case of death, guaranteed paradise, and those who refused were guaranteed hell.

O. Islam’s Opponents

Islam is often presented in the West as a very tolerant religion. It is pointed out, for example, that although the word “Islam” in itself means submission (under the will of God), the word for peace, “salam”, comes from the same root as the word “Islam”. By this is meant that the whole religion right from the very beginning has been tolerant and peace-loving. Reference is often given to Sura Al Baqarah 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion…” It is therefore of interest to study how the Qur`ân describes the situation of Islam’s opponents.

O1. Terrible punishments for the opponents of Islam

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” Al Mâ`idah 5:33

Comment:
As Muhammad’s political power grew in Medina, it became more and more dangerous for his opponents. This led to a great number of them being executed in the year 5AH (627 AD), among them all the men (about 600) in the last Jewish family in Medina, “Banû Quraiza”. Earlier, in the year 4AH (626 AD) another Jewish family from Medina, “Banû Nadîr” was forced into exile (see Sura Al Hashr 59:2-4) (Sîrat Al Rasûl, part 2, p.148, 75; Kitâb Al Maghâzî, Wâqidî, p.125,126; Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.332-333).

This Qur`ân verse shows that, ultimately, there was no mercy for Islam’s opponents, but instead that they were to be punished in the most cruel ways thinkable.

It is worth noting that it is precisely this verse which is still used today in Islamic law and has served as the foundation for many death penalties in Iran after the revolution there. It has even been included in the grounds for court rulings with the death sentence against members of Bahaism. The verse has regularly been cited during the sentencing of those whom we would classify as political opponents of the regime.

When someone is called “mufsid” (one who “strives with might and main for mischief” or spreads corruption) and “muhârib Allah wa rasûlahu” (one who “wages war against Allah and his Messenger”), it is a very serious accusation which brings with it a definite risk of the death penalty in present-day Iran.

O2. Punishment awaits those who leave Islam

“…And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.” Al Baqarah 2:217

Comment:
Quite definitely, an apostate of Islam can only expect hell after his death. It is, according to Islamic law, strictly forbidden to leave Islam. Those who leave Islam become “murtadd” (apostate) and are, according to Islamic law, to be sentenced to death (The Religion of Islam, Dr. Ahmad Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957, p.112).

We can ask ourselves how it is that leaving Islam carries the death penalty in Islamic law (Shari’a), since it is not explicitly stated in the Qur`ân.

The reason is that in the Hadîth (the tradition) are direct quotations from Muhammad where he prescribed the death penalty for apostasy. Islamic law (Shari’a) is derived, namely, both from the Qur`ân and Muhammad’s “sunna” (that is, his approach to the practice of Islam), which is written in the “Hadîth” (the tradition).

One Hadîth, which goes back to Uthmân Ibn Affân, is as follows.

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (sala Allah ‘aleihi wa sallam) say:

Shed not the blood of a Muslim man save in one of these three cases:

• The one who has committed adultery… he is to be stoned.

• The one who has killed without just cause.

• The one who has apostatised from Islam…”

(Sunun, Hâfith Ibn Abdallah Muhammad Bin Yazîd Al-Qazwînî Ibn Mâjah, Hadîth 2533).

O3. Opponents are given an ignominious burial

“Nor do thou ever pray for any of them that dies, nor stand at his grave; for they rejected Allah and His Messenger, and died in a state of perverse rebellion.” Al Tawbah 9:84

Comment:
Even after his death an opponent was to be dishonoured. A Muslim was not allowed to express sympathy, something which was otherwise a social duty. The reason was quite simply that the deceased had renounced Allah and Muhammad as his apostle.

O4. Hell for the disobedient

“…For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger – for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein forever.” Al Jinn 72:23

Comment:
It was dangerous not to obey Muhammad. Those who disobeyed could be sure of hell (see also Sura Al Tawbah 9:80).

O5. No protection for the apostate

“…But if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: they shall have none on earth to protect or help them.” Al Tawbah 9:74

Comment:
The apostate, apart from hell, could be sure of that no-one would help or protect him in Islamic society.

O6. Idolaters were to become Muslims or be executed

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Al Tawbah 9:5

Comment:
Those who chose to keep their idolatry in the end found no grace in Muhammad. He ordered their execution. Their only chance of survival was conversion to Islam.

Conclusion:

For Islam’s opponents at the time of Muhammad, Sura Al Baqarah 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion…” must have sounded like quite a hollow claim. On closer examination it turns out that Islam was not at all tolerant towards its opponents, but on the contrary, rejection of Muhammad and the Qur`ân meant mortal danger.

We must sadly say that this has also been the case with Christianity during long periods in history. The crucial difference, however, lies in the fact that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament never at any time sanctioned violence, but taught instead: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” Luke 6:27-28

P. Equality Between Men and Women

The form of Islam we meet in the West often tries to make it appear that men and women are equal within Islam, that women in Islam are free and not subordinate to men. But what is the real picture of women we see in the Qur`ân?

P1. Men are a degree above women

“…But men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Al Baqarah 2:228

Comment:
It does not say in what way men have an advantage over women in this verse, but in other places in the Qur`ân it quite clearly proves to be the case that men have certain privileges and rights which women do not enjoy. But here, however, it is enough to conclude that the Qur`ân gives men advantage over women.

P2. Two female witnesses are like one male

“…And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses…” Al Baqarah 2:282

Comment:
Quite clearly, the Qur`ân prescribes that in court hearings the testimony of two women is equivalent to that of one man. This is a verse which shows how men enjoyed a certain advantage over women according to the Qur`ân. Since the Qur`ân teaches this, these regulations still apply today in “Shari’a” (Islamic law) (Punishment in islamic law: A comparative study, Muhammad S. El-Awa, American Trust Publications, 1982, p.125).

P3. Two daughters inherit as one son

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…” Al Nisâ` 4:11

Comment:
There are legitimate reasons for this apparent difference between sons and daughters. It was the sons who carried on the family name. They also had a special responsibility to look after their ageing parents, while the daughters were married off to other families. The fact remains, however, that a son received a double share of the inheritance. This still applies today in Islamic law.

P4. Wife-beating

“…As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)…” Al Nisâ` 4:34

Comment:
Here the Qur`ân shows how a wife who conducts herself badly and does not subordinate herself can be disciplined by her husband. What is remarkable is that the man has the right to use his greater physical strength by beating his wife. The word is “adribuhunna” (“beat them”) and “lightly” is not in the Arabic. With this verse as a basis, it is allowed for a man to beat his wife even according to Shari’a law (The Religion of Islam: A Standard Book, Dr. Ahmed A. Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957. p.112-113).

P5. Maid-servants can be forced into sex

“…But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).” Al Nûr 24:33

Comment:
The verse has a promising start for a vulnerable group of women, namely those maid-servants who wished to lead pure lives. But the rest of the verse must have been a nightmare for these women. The Qur`ân teaches that God is very forgiving if men obtain sex with these poor maid-servants by force.

P6. Men are allowed four wives

“…Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four…” Al Nisâ` 4:3

Comment:
This privilege still applies today in Islamic law and in most of the countries where Islam is a majority religion.

P7. Men can divorce women

“O Prophet! When ye do divorce women…” Al Talâq 65:1

“…And take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence…” Al Talâq 65:2

Comment:
Apart from a very few exceptional cases it is the man alone who has the right to divorce his wife according to Shari’a law (The Religion of Islam: A Standard Book, Dr. Ahmed A. Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957, p.67). In the presence of witnesses, he is to say three times that he divorces his wife. After this the divorce is fact. Besides this he is not allowed to remarry her until she has been married to another man.

It is also worth noting that according to Islamic law a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim man, while a Muslim man is allowed to marry a non-Muslim woman from the People of the Book (The Religion of Islam: A Standard Book, Dr. Ahmed A. Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957, p.69).

P8. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

“In them will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty. Then which..?” Al Rahmân 55:70-77

Comment:
Thus, there will be an unknown number of beautiful virgins who, according to Muhammad, will satisfy the men in paradise.

We can safely say that neither in paradise will there be equality between men and women.

Conclusion:

These examples are sufficient to show that men and women are not equal in the Qur`ân, but that men have certain rights and privileges that women do not have. The Qur`ân is thereby consistent in its claim, “…but men have, ‘daraja’, a degree (of advantage), over them.”

Bibliography and List of References

 Place in studyThe Holy Qur`ân, Ali, Amana Corporation, Brentwood, Maryland,1989 note 8B1C. 32B1note 141E6note 284E15page 738, 740E17note 5092H5note 3754H10note 1616, 1617J2note 929M1note 3274M9 The BibleE1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-16, 19-21;
F4; G9-10, 12; K6-7, CONC.;
L4, CONC.; O CONC. The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1901 Pirke Rabbi EliazerE1Midrash RabbahE5II Targum of the Book of EstherE16History of our holy Father the Aged, the CarpenterE18The Gospel of the InfancyE20Story of Martyrs, Gregory of ToursE24The Gospel of Thomas the IsraeliteG5Miskât al MasâbîhH6 Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1910INTRO, B4, F5, H9, 13, 17, J5, O1Al Baidawi, vol 2, p.129H13Al Jalâlân, commentary of Ibn Hishâm, vol 3H13Ibn Athîr, vol 2H13Mishkât al MasâbîhH13Sîrat Al Rasûl, part 2H17, O1Kitâb Al Maghâzî, WâqidîH17, O1 Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1979 Evidence That Demand A Verdict, McDowell, Campus Crusade For Christ Inc, 1972C CONC.Encyclopedia Of The Bible, Lion Publishing, Tring, Herts, EnglandE13Från Jesus Till Moder Teresa, Tergel, Verbum, 1973G10The Hans Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic, Spoken Language Services Inc, 1976G12, M6, N INTNahjul Balagha, Reza, Tahrike Tarsile Qur`ân Inc, New York, 1984 The Unseen Face Of Islam, Musk, Monarch Publications, Tumbridge Wells, 1989M INT, CONPassionate Believing, Musk, Monarch Publications, Tumbridge Wells, 1992N INTROThe Religion Of Islam, Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957O2, P4, 7Sunun, Hâfith Ibn Abdallah Muhammed Bin Yazîd Al-Qazwînî Ibn Mâjah, Hadîth 2533O2Punishment In Islamic Law, El-Awa, American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, 1982P4

Qur`an Verses

A list of the Qur`ân verses quoted in each section. References in brackets are Qur`ân and Bible verses mentioned in the comments.

A1 43:4

A2 13:38-39

A3 56:77-79

B1 20:133 (Genesis; Exodus)

B2 46:10

B3 26:192, 195-199

B4 52:33-34 (2:23)

B5 29:50-51

C1 2:89

C2 2:101

C3 2:113

C4 3:79

C5 5:68

C6 10:94

D1 5:44

D2 7:169-170

D3 5:69 (2:40-41; 3:31; 4:150-151; 7:157; 33:40; 61:6)

D4 5:111 (3:52)

D5 3:55

E1 5:31 (Genesis 4:1-16)

E2 66:10-11

E3 6:74 (Genesis 11:26)

E4 21:52 (21:51-75)

E5 37:97 (Daniel 3)

E6 22:26 (2:142-143)

E7 12:31 (Genesis 39:1-20)

E8 28:9 (Exodus 2:10)

E9 18:60 (18:60-82)

E10 20:71 (Exodus; Sura 5:33)

E11 40:36-37 (Esther 3:1)

E12 7:171 (Exodus 19:16-19)

E13 20:85, 87-88 (Exodus 32:1-35; Sura 20:97; 1 Kings 12:25-31)

E14 66:12; 19:28 (1 Chronicles 6:3; Exodus 15:20)

E15 2:249 (Judges 7:4-6)

E16 27:16-19, 38-40, 44 (1 Kings 1-11; Sura 27:16-44)

E17 18:83 (18:83-101, 18:86, 95, 98)

E18 3:37

E19 3:41 (Luke 1:18-20, 59-64)

E20 19:22-23 (Matthew 1, Luke 1-2)

E21 61:6 (John 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4)

E22 5:75, 116; 43:81; 112:2-4

E23 4:157-158

E24 18:9, 18, 25

F1 11:110

F2 3:78-79

F3 2:78-79

F4 13:39 (Luke 16:17; 21:33)

F5 2:106; 16:101

G1 21:91

G2 23:50

G3 4:171

G4 3:59

G5 3:49

G6 57:27

G7 112:1-4

G8 43:81

G9 5:116 (Matthew 28:19-20; John 1:1, 14; 1:18; 14:6-11)

G10 4:157-158 (Isaiah 53)

G11 2:240; 5:117; 3:55; 19:33 (4:157)

G12 61:6 (John 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4)

H1 33:66, 71 (24:51-54)

H2 33:40

H3 6:109

H4 29:50-51

H5 53:7-9, 13

H6 17:1

H7 21:5

H8 51:52

H9 33:50

H10 33:52

H11 33:51

H12 66:1-2

H13 33:37

H14 66:3, 5

H15 49:2-3

H16 33:53

H17 59:2-4

H18 59:7

I1 2:177

I2 112:1-4

I3 17:111

I4 59:22-24

J1 2:163

J2 11:114; 4:43; 62:9

J3 2:187

J4 2:43, 9:60

J5 2:196

K1 50:17

K2 54:52-53

K3 17:13

K4 101:6-11

K5 16:61 (4:27-28)

K6 6:160 (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

K7 40:7-8 (Luke 15:11-32)

K8 32:13

K9 41:24 (72:23)

K Conclusion (Romans 6:23)

L1 40:7

L2 43:70

L3 43:71 (37:42-49; 56:11-38)

L4 55:56-57, 70-77 (Matthew 22:30)

L5 83:25-26

L6 78:21-25 (72:23)

L7 44:43-46

L8 44:47-48

L9 33:66

L Conclusion (Ephesians 2:13)

M1 15:27

M2 72:11

M3 46:29-31

M4 72:1

M5 72:15 (32:13)

M6 20:116 (2:98)

M7 2:102

M8 37:6-10

M9 38:36-37 (27:17; 34:12-13; 27:39)

M10 97:3-4

M Conclusion (Suras 113 and 114)

N1 9:20

N2 2:190-191

N3 9:5

N4 9:29

N5 3:157-158

N6 8:16

N7 8:69 (33:50)

N8 8:41

O Introduction 2:256

O1 5:33 (59:2-4)

O2 2:217

O3 9:84

O4 72:23 (9:80)

O5 9:74

O6 9:5

O Conclusion (2:256; Luke 6:27-28)

P1 2:228

P2 2:282

P3 4:11

P4 4:34

P5 24:33

P6 4:3

P7 65:1-2

P8 55:70-77

A list of Qur`ân verses mentioned or quoted in the study sura for sura.

2:23 (B4), 2:40-41 (D3), 2:43 (J4), 2:78-79 (F3), 2:89 (C1),2:98 (M6), 2:101 (C2), 2:102 (M7), 2:106 (F5), 2:113 (C3),2:142-143 (E6), 2:163 (J1), 2:177 (I1), 2:187 (J3), 2:190-191 (N2), 2:196 (J5), 2:217 (O2), 2:228 (P1), 2:240 (G11), 2:249 (E15), 2:256 (O INTRODUCTION,O CONCLUSION), 2:282 (P2)

3:31 (D3), 3:37 (E18), 3:41 (E19), 3:49 (G5),3:52 (D4), 3:55 (D5, G11), 3:59 (G4), 3:78-79 (F2), 3:79 (C4), 3:157-158 (N5)

4:3 (P6), 4:11 (P3),4:27-28 (K5), 4:34 (P4), 4:43 (J2),4:150-151 (D3), 4:157 (G11), 4:157-158 (E23, G10), 4:171 (G3)

5:31 (E1), 5:33(E10, O1), 5:44 (D1), 5:68 (C5), 5:69 (D3), 5:75 (E22), 5:111 (D4), 5:116 (E22, G9), 5:117 (G11)

6:74 (E3), 6:109 (H3), 6:160 (K6)

7:157 (D3), 7:169-170 (D2), 7:171 (E12)

8:16 (N6), 8:41 (N8), 8:69 (N7)

9:5 (N3, O6), 9:20 (N1), 9:29 (N4), 9:60 (J4), 9:74 (O5),9:80 (O4), 9:84 (O3)

10:94 (C6)

11:110 (F1), 11:114 (J2)

12:31 (E7)

13:38-39 (A2), 13:39 (F4)

15:27 (M1)

16:61 (K5), 16:101 (F5)

17:1 (H6), 17:13 (K3), 17:111 (I3)

18:9, 18, 25 (E24), 18:60 (E9),18:60-82 (E9), 18:83 (E17),18:83-101 (E17), 18:86, 95, 98 (E17)

19:22-23 (E20), 19:28 (E14), 19:33 (G11)

20:71 (E10), 20:85, 87-88 (E13),20:97 (E13), 20:116 (M6), 20:133 (B1)

21:5 (H7),21:51-75 (E4), 21:52 (E4), 21:91 (G1)

22:26 (E6)

23:50 (G2)

24:33 (P5),24:51-54 (H1)

26:192, 195-199 (B3)

27:16-19, 38-40, 44 (E16),27:16-44 (E16), 27:17 (M9), 27:39 (M9)

28:9 (E8)

29:50-51 (B5, H4)

32:13 (K8,M5)

33:37 (H13), 33:40(D3, H2), 33:50 (H9,N7), 33:51 (H11), 33:52 (H10), 33:53 (H16), 33:66 (H1, L9), 33:71 (H1)

34:12-13 (M9)

37:6-10 (M8),37:42-49 (L3), 37:97 (E5)

38:36-37 (M9)

40:7 (L1), 40:7-8 (K7), 40:36-37 (E11)

41:24 (K9)

43:4 (A1), 43:70 (L2), 43:71 (L3), 43:81 (E22, G8)

44:43-46 (L7), 44:47-48 (L8)

46:10 (B2), 46:29-31 (M3)

49:2-3 (H15)

50:17 (K1)

51:52 (H8)

52:33-34 (B4)

53:7-9, 13 (H5)

54:52-53 (K2)

55:56-57 (L4), 55:70-77 (L4, P8)

56:11-38 (L3), 56:77-79 (A3)

57:27 (G6)

59:2-4 (H17,O1), 59:7 (H18), 59:22-24 (I4)

61:6(D3, E21, G12)

62:9 (J2)

65:1-2 (P7)

66:1-2 (H12), 66:3-5 (H14), 66:10-11 (E2), 66:12 (E14)

72:1 (M4), 72:11 (M2), 72:15 (M5), 72:23(K9, L6, 04)

78:21-25 (L6)

83:25-26 (L5)

97:3-4 (M10)

101:6-11 (K4)

112:1-4 (G7, I2), 112:2-4 (E22)

113 (M CONCLUSION)

114 (M CONCLUSION)

Bible Verses

A list of Bible verses quoted or mentioned in the comments.

Old Testament

Genesis (B1), 4:1-16 (E1), 11:26 (E3), 39:1-20 (E7)

Exodus (B1, E10), 2:10 (E8), 15:20 (E14), 19:16-19 (E12), 32:1-35 (E13)

Judges 7:4-6 (E15)

1 Kings 1-11 (E16), 12:25-31 (E13)

1Chronicles 6:3 (E14)

Esther 3:1 (E11)

Isaiah 53 (G10)

Daniel 3 (E5)

New Testament

Matthew 1 (E20), 22:30 (L4), 28:19-20 (G9)

Luke 1-2 (E20), 1:18-20, 59-64 (E19), 6:27-28 (O Conclusion), 15:11-32 (K7), 16:17 (F4), 21:33 (F4)

John 1:1, 14, 18 (G9), 14:6-11 (G9), 14:15-26 (E21, G12), 15:26 (E21, G12), 16:5-15 (E21, G12)

Acts 1:4-8 (E21, G12), 2:1-4 (E21, G12)

Romans 6:23 (K Conclusion)

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (K6)

Ephesians 2:13 (L Conclusion)

The Bible and The Qur’an — An Historical Comparison

CONTENTS:

Introduction

Manuscript Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Documentary Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Archeological Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Conclusion

References Cited

Overview

The Qur’an

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Authority of the Qur’an

3. The Revelation of the Qur’an

4. The Inspiration of the Qur’an

5. The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

   1. Its Holiness

   2. Its Superior Style

   3. Its Literary Qualities

   4. Its Pure Arabic

6. The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

   1. The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

   2. The “Sword” found in the Qur’an

7. The Collation, or Collection of the Qur’anic Text

   1. The Periods of Revelation

   2. The Method of Collection

      1. Zaid’s Collection

      2. Competing Collections

   3. The Standardisation of One Text

   4. The Missing Verses

      1. Sura 33:23

      2. The Verse on Stoning

   5. The Variations Between the Codices

      1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

      2. Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

   6. Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

8. The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

9. Errors Found Within the Qur’an

   1. Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

      1. Moses

      2. Yahya

      3. Trinity

      4. Ezra

   2. Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors

      1. Mary & Imran

      2. Haman

   3. Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

      1. Ishmael

      2. Samaritan

      3. Sunset

      4. Issa

      5. Mountains

      6. Alexander the Great

      7. Creation

      8. Pharaoh’s Cross

      9. Other Scientific problems

   4. Absurdities

      1. Man’s Greatness

      2. Seven Earths

      3. Jinns & Shooting Stars

      4. Solomon’s power over nature

      5. Youth and dog sleep 309 years

      6. People become apes

      7. Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

      8. Jacob’s smell & sight

      9. Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man

   5. Grammatical Errors

10. The Sources of the Qur’an

    1. Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

       1. Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

       2. Cain and Abel

       3. Abraham

       4. Mt Sanai

       5. Solomon and Sheba

       6. Mary, Imran and Zachariah

       7. Jesus’s Birth

       8. Heaven and Hell

    2. Stories Which do not Correspond with the Biblical Account

       1. Harut and Marut

       2. The Cave of 7 Sleepers

       3. The Sirat

11. Conclusion

12. References

---

A: Introduction

How many of you have been in a conversation with a Muslim, and you find that soon there are irreconcilable differences between you? You ask the Muslim why he or she says the things they do, and they respond that they only repeat what they have learned from the Qur’an. In reply you claim that what you believe also comes from the Word of God, the Bible. It doesn’t take long before you realize that neither side can agree because the authority for what you believe and say is at a variance to what they believe and say. Our Bible contradicts much of what their Qur’an says, and this fact alone will continue to negate many worthwhile conversations which we may wish to indulge in.

So, what is the solution? If two documents are in contradiction, the first thing to do is ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately. And if not, then we must conclude that one of the two documents is false. Therefore, before we get into serious dialogue with a Muslim we must ask the question of whether the authority for our respective beliefs (the Qur’an and the Bible) can stand up to verification, and whether they can stand up to a critical analysis of their authenticity.

This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from revealed truth, which they find in their respective scriptures. Consequently, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is a task that no-one should take lightly, and I don’t intend to do so here. For that reason, I have decided not to attempt a simplistic analysis concerning the authority of the Qur’an and the Bible in one single paper. Instead I will begin by dealing with the authority of the Qur’an in this paper and then turn my attention to the authority for our own scriptures, the Bible, in a follow-up paper.

In no way do I claim to know all the answers, nor will I be so pretentious as to assume that I can exhaustively argue the question of authority for both the Qur’an and the Bible in these two papers. These studies are nothing more than mere “overviews,” with the hope that they will stimulate you to continue studying these very important areas in your own time, so that you too will “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we observe the two faiths, we see immediately that they are in conflict with one another concerning their scriptures. Muslims believe that their scripture, the Qur’an, is the ‘final revelation,’ while Christians believe only the Bible (including the Old and New Testaments) can claim true authority.

If we were to delve into the contents of each scripture we would find that the two are at variance with one another in a number of areas: stories have changed, characters are missing and entire sections do not exist in one but do in the other.

In order to delineate which is correct, we will need to take each revelation separately and ask whether it can stand up to scrutiny, whether it can hold firm under critical analysis, and whether it can claim to be indeed the true revelation from God. Let us then start with the authority for the Qur’an

---

Normally when one begins any research into the Qur’an, the first question which should be asked is how we know that it is what it claims to be, the final word of God? In order to answer that question we would need to go to the sources of the Qur’an to ascertain its authenticity.

As you well know, going to the sources of the Qur’an is much more difficult then one would usually assume, as we have so little data with which to use. In another paper (The problems with Sources of Islam) I have dealt with the problems which exist when confronted by the dearth of material on the sources of the Qur’an, so I won’t repeat those arguments here.

Suffice it to say, that the only real source we have for the Qur’an is the book itself, and what Muslim Traditions tell us concerning how that book came to be created. Because of their late compilations (200-300 years after the event), and the contradicting documentation which we now possess prior to 750 C.E., I find it difficult to consider either of them as valid or authentic as source material.

However, since we are attempting to compare the Qur’an with our own scriptures, I will, for the time being, set aside my prejudices, and assume, for argument’s sake, that the traditions are correct. In other words, I will take the position of current orthodox Muslim scholarship and presume that the Qur’an was compiled in the years 646-650 C.E., from material which originated with the man Muhammad before his death in 632 C.E.

It is from this premise that I will attempt to respond to the question of whether the Qur’an can claim to be the final and most perfect revelation of God’s word to humanity.

---

B: The Authority for the Qur’an

The Arabic word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the root ‘qara’a’, which means “to read” or “to recite.” This was the command which the angel Gabriel supposedly asked Muhammad three times to do when he confronted him in July or August 610 C.E. in the Hira cave, situated three miles north-east of Mecca (Mishkat IV p.354).

According to Muslims the Qur’an is the final revelation from Allah. In Arabic the Qur’an is also referred to as ‘Al-Kitab’ (the book), ‘Al-furkan’ (the distinction), ‘Al-mas’haf’ (the scroll), and ‘Al-dikhr’ (the warning),
as well as other names.

For those who like statistics, you may be interested to know that the Qur’an consists of 114 chapters (suras), made up of 30 parts, 6,616 verses (ayas), 77,943 words, and 338,606 letters. According to Islamic scholars 86 of the suras were revealed in Mecca, while 28 suras were revealed at Medina. Yet, as portions of some suras were recited in both places, you will continue to find a few of the scholars still debating the origins for a number of them. The suras vary in length and are known by a name or title, which are taken from the general theme of that sura, or a particular subject, person or event mentioned in it. This theme may not necessarily appear at the beginning of the sura, however.

Each verse or portion of the sura is known as an ‘aya’, which means “miracle” in Arabic. Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an was his sole miracle, though the Qur’an did not exist in its written form during his lifetime. In fact much of the controversy concerning the chronology of the Qur’an can be blamed on the fact that he was not around to verify its final collation. But more about that later. To begin with, let’s start with the question of revelation: how does Islam understand this concept, and could their view on it be one of the reasons we don’t see eye-to-eye concerning our two scriptures?

---

C: The Revelation of the Qur’an

Islam, like Christianity, believes that God (Allah) desires to communicate with humanity. But, unlike Christianity, Islam tells us that Allah is remote, so he must not reveal himself to humanity at a personal
level. It is for that reason that Allah is forced to employ appointed prophets, who are known as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are mere humans and so finite, though they are given a special status, and consequently protected by God.

Because Allah is so transcendent and unapproachable, revelation in Islam is simply one-way: from God to humanity, via the prophets. While each prophet supposedly fulfilled his mission by producing a book, the final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is that given to the final prophet Muhammad: the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, Muslims believe, is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation, which are found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. Muslims point to sura 85:21-22 which says “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe that the Qur’an is an absolutely identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters is concerned (why modern translations still can’t agree what those divisions are is evident when trying to refer to an aya for comparison between one version and another).

According to Muslim tradition, these ‘revelations’ were sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens at the time of the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (‘lailat al Qadr’) (Pfander, 1910:262). From there it was revealed to Muhammad in instalments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and must be revered as such.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for nazil revelation of the Qur’an, comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. There are no outside witnesses before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony; nor are miracles provided to substantiate his claims.

In fact, the evidences for the authority of God’s revelation, which the Bible emphatically produces are completely absent in the Qur’an, namely, that the revelation of God must speak in the name of God, Yahweh, that the message must conform to revelation which has gone before, that it must make predictions which are verifiable, and that the revelation must be accompanied by signs and wonders in order to give it authority as having come from God. Because these are missing in the case of the prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, for those of us who are Christians, it seems indeed that it is the Qur’an and not the Bible which turns out to be the most human of documents.

Yet, Muslims continue to believe that the exact Arabic words which we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven. This, according to them, makes the Qur’an the “Mother of books” (refer to sura 43:3). Muslims believe there is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, in both suras 2:23 and 10:37-38 we find the challenge to, “Present some other book of equal beauty,” (a challenge which we will deal with later).

This final revelation, according to Islam, is transcendent, and consequently, beyond the capacity for conjecture, or criticism. What this means is that the Qur’an which we possess today is and has always been final and pure, which prohibits any possibility for verification or falsification of the text.

Because Allah is revered much as a master is to a slave, so his word is to be revered likewise. One does not question its pronouncements any more than one would question a masters pronouncements.

What then are we to do with the problems which do exist in the Qur’an?

If it is such a transcendent book, as Muslims claim, then it should stand up to any criticism. Yet, what are we to do with the many contradictions, the factual errors and bizarre claims it makes? Furthermore, when we look more carefully at the text that we have in our possession today, which is supposedly that of Uthman’s final codification of the Qur’an, compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, from a copy of Hafsah’s manuscript, we are puzzled by the differences between it and the four co-existing codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy, all of which have deviations and deletions between them.

Another problem concerns its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we may not question its content, much of which, according to Muslim Tradition, originates from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years), and so consists of basic rules and regulations for social, economical, and political structures, many of which have been borrowed from existing legal traditions of the Byzantine and Persian cultures, leaving us with a seventh-ninth century document which has not been easily adapted to the twentieth century.

As Christians, this question is important. The Bible, by contrast is not simply a book of rigid rules and regulations which takes a particular historical context and absolutizes it for all ages and all peoples. Instead, we find in the Bible broad principles with which we can apply to each age and each culture (such as worship styles, music, dress, all of which can and are being contextualized in the variety of cultures which the church finds itself today).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies. Since we do not have a concept of Nazil revelation, we have no fear of delving into and trying to understand the context of what the author was trying to say (the process of historical analysis). But one would expect such from a revelation provided by a personal God who intended to be actively involved in the transmission of His revelation.

This, I feel is the crux of the problem between Islam’s and Christianity’s views on revelation.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God. That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.”

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.” This He does by means of prophets, who are sent with a specific word for a specific time, a specific place, and a specific people. Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable capacity to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken with humanity at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden. This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity. He took upon Himself the form of a human, spoke our language, used our forms of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we who are finite and human would better understand Him who
is infinite and divine and beyond all human understanding.

As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2:

“God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.”

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified!

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. It is, for all practical purposes, a secondary revelation. It is simply the witness to the revelation of God. The Bible tells us about His life, mentioning what He said and did, and then expounds these teachings for the world today. It is merely a book which points to a person. Therefore, we can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself to truly understand who God is.

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the comforter, convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus. (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the truest revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us.

For Muslims this must sound confusing, and possibly threatening, as it brings God’s infinite revelation down from its transcendent pedestal, and presents it within the context of finite humanity. Perhaps to better explain this truth to them we may want to change tactics somewhat. Instead of comparing the Qur’an with the Bible, as most apologists tend to do, it might be helpful to compare the Qur’an with Jesus, as they are both considered to be the Word of God, and stand as God’s truest revelation to humanity.

The Bible (especially the New Testament), consequently, is the testimony of Jesus’s companions, testifying about what He said and did. To take this a step further, we could possibly compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira of the prophet and the Tafsir, all of which comment upon the history and teachings of the prophet and the Qur’an. While this may help us explain the Bible to a Muslim we must be careful to underline that though the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning how He lived. On the other hand the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with here and there interpretations of what he said.

In this light there is no comparison between the two revelations, Jesus and the Qur’an. The Qur’an, a mere book with all its faults and inadequacies, its very authenticity weakly resting on the shoulders of one finite man, who himself has few credentials as a prophet, is no match against Jesus, the man, revered by Muslims and Christians alike as sinless, who, according to His sinless Word is God Himself, and therefore, the perfect revelation.

It may be helpful to use this argument to introduce Jesus to a Muslim, rather then begin with His deity, as it explains the purpose of Jesus before attempting to define who He is; in other words explaining the why before the how.

---

D: The Inspiration of the Qur’an

That then leads us into the question of inspiration. We have already said that God (or Allah) requires agents in the form of prophets to communicate his truth to his creation. Yet how does Allah communicate his thoughts and will to these prophets? How is revelation carried out?

The Arabic term which best explains the process of revelation is the word ‘Wahy’, which can mean ‘divine inspiration.’ According to the Qur’an the primary aim of Wahy is two fold:

1. to prove Muhammad’s call to prophet-hood (according to suras 13:30 and 34:50), and

2. to give him authority to warn people (according to sura 6:19).

Concerning the inspiration of the previous prophets, we are told very little.

In sura 42:51 we find Wahy explained as such:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills, for He is most high, most wise.”

According to the above sura there are three methods by which Allah communicates to his creation:

1. by direct inspiration

2. from behind a veil and

3. through a messenger (the implication is that of an angelic being).

Since the Qur’an tells us little concerning how Muhammad received his revelations, we refer to those who compiled the Sira of the prophet, men like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Athir, and the Turkish writer ‘Ali Halabi to get a clearer insight. Their writings list seven forms of the experience of Wahy by Muhammad, some of which are quite revealing:

1. While the Wahy (inspiration) lasted, according to his wife Aisha, there were the sounds of bells ringing as he sweated profusely. He would become greatly perturbed and his face would change (Sahih Muslim). Muslim Tradition tells us that sometimes he would shiver and swoon, his mouth would foam, and he would roar like a camel (Mishkat IV p.359). At other times when the inspiration descended there was the sound near his face like the buzzing of bees (from ‘Umar ibnu’l Khattab), while at other times he felt a tremendous headache (from Abu Hurairah). Many times it seemed to his friends that he swooned and looked like someone intoxicated (Pfander 1910:346).

2. Wahy came to him in dreams.

3. Inspiration also came to him in visions while he was awake.

4. At times he saw an angel in the form of a young man (Pfander 1910:345).

5. At other times he saw angels in angelic form (sura 42:51).

6. During one evening (known as the Mi’raj) he was raptured through the Seven Heavens (according to the Hadith, Muhammad was taken to the highest heaven where he received the command to pray five times a day).

7. Allah spoke to him from behind a veil (sura 42:51).

When we look at all these examples of inspiration a picture begins to form, of a man who either had a vivid imagination, or was possessed, or suffered from a disease such as epilepsy. Muhammad, according to ‘Amr ibn Sharhabil, mentioned to his wife Khadijah that he feared he was possessed by demons and wondered whether others might consider him possessed by jinn (Pfander 1910:345).

Even during his childhood Muhammad was afflicted with similar problems, causing concern to his friends who felt he had “become afflicted” (Pfander 1910:347).

Anyone acquainted with occult phenomena would be aware of the conditions of those who participate in seances. Occult phenomena in childhood, daydreams, the hearing of voices and calls, nightly meditations, excessive perspiration during trances and the subsequent exhaustion and swoon-like condition; as well as the ringing of bells are quite common. Even the intoxicated condition resembles someone who is in a reasonably deep trance.

Also revealing is the report by Al Waqidi that Muhammad had such an aversion to the form of the cross that he would break everything brought into the house with a shape of the cross on it (Nehls 1990:61).

What we must ask is whether these manifestations point to true occurrences of inspiration, or whether they were simply a disease, or a condition of demonization? Historians inform us that certain great men (many of whom tended to be great warriors, such as Julius Caesar, the great Roman general, as well as the emperor Peter the Great of Russia, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor), all exhibited the same symptoms mentioned above. But none of them claimed to be prophets or apostles of God, nor did their followers offer them such status.

While we want to be careful not to revel in trivial speculation, we must remember that the above statements concerning Muhammad’s condition did not originate from sources outside of Islam. These were statements by his friends and relatives, and those who most firmly believed in his claim to be the seal of the prophets. I am not an expert on these matters, so I leave it to you to decide whether the facts which we have learned concerning the condition of Muhammad at the time he received his revelations, can lead us to the conclusion that what he received were truly inspired.

---

E: The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

Moving on, we now tackle the book itself, and ask whether its supposed qualities give it the right to claim a unique position alongside those of the previous scriptures.

E1: Its Holiness

While Muslims hold a high view for all Scriptures, including the Old and New Testaments, they demand a unique and supreme position for the Qur’an, claiming its ascendancy over all other scriptures, because, according to them, “initially, it was never written down by men and so was never tainted with men’s thoughts or styles.” As we mentioned earlier, it is often referred to as the “Mother of Books” (taken from sura 43:3).

Since the Qur’an is such a highly honoured book, it therefore is treated as if it, in itself, is holy. To enquire into its source is considered blasphemy. In most mosques which I have attended, no one would be permitted to let their Qur’an touch the floor. Instead, every individual was urged to use ornately decorated book-stands to rest their Qur’an on while reading from its contents. My Muslim friends were horrified to learn that Christians not only stacked Bibles alongside other lesser books, but that they wrote notes in the margins as well.

The function of the Qur’an, then, seems to be in opposition to that of the Bible. This points out another clear distinction between the two faiths view on revelation.

Take the example of an old man I met in a Pennsylvania mosque, who was highly revered due to his ability to quote, by memory, any passage from the Qur’an (and thus had the title of Hafiz). Yet, I never saw him lead any discussions on the Qur’an. A young Saudi Arabian man was given that responsibility. When I asked, “Why?” I was told that the old gentleman didn’t understand Arabic well (memorizing thus doesn’t command understanding).

It shocked me to find a man who had spent years memorizing the Qur’an, yet had no yearning to understand the content of its message. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims find little desire to translate their most holy book? Merit is found in the rote reading of the Qur’an in Arabic, and not in its message.

Another example is that of a friend of mine here in London who considered the Qur’an the epitome of beauty, and offered me certain suras as examples. Yet, when I asked him to translate the texts he could not.

Some of the Pakistani students at the university I attend who could quote certain passages, admired the beauty of the text, but had great difficulty in explaining the meaning. I found it disconcerting that the “beauty of the Qur’an” had such an influence, yet its “beauty” seemed, in fact, to discourage its understanding, which becomes an enemy to its mystique.

Here then is the key which points to the difference between the scriptures of the Christians and that of the Muslims. The fact that Muslims accord the Qur’an a place of reverence and worship, while memorizing its contents without necessarily understanding it, sparks of idolatry, the very sin (“Shirk”) which the Qur’an itself warns against, as it elevates an object to the same level of reverence as Allah (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

In much of the Muslim world leather amulets worn on the body are sold outside the mosques (sometimes called Giri-giri). Within these amulets one can find folded pieces of paper with an aya, or verse from the Qur’an written on them. These verses supposedly have power to ward off evil spirits and diseases. For these Muslims the very letters of the Qur’an are imbued with supernatural power.

Christianity stands against this view of God’s written word. We believe that the power and authority for the scriptures comes not from the paper it is written on, but from the words it expresses. We believe that the Bible is merely the testimony of God’s revelation to humanity, and so is not holy in and of itself. It is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Therefore, its importance lies in its content, rather than in its physical pages, just as a newspaper is read and thrown away, though the news it holds may remain imprinted on the readers mind for years to come.

Perhaps, the criticism by Muslims that Christians abuse the Bible is a result of this misunderstanding of its purpose. Once we understand the significance of the scriptures as nothing more than a repository of God’s word, we can then understand why Christians feel no injunction against writing in its margins, or against laying it on the floor (though most of the Christians I know would not do so out of respect for its message).

The high regard for the Qur’an carries over into other areas as well, some of which need to be discussed at this time.

E2: Its Superior Style

Many Muslims claim that the superiority of the Qur’an over all other revelations is due to its sophisticated literary style. They quote suras 10:37-38, or 2:23, or 17:88, which say: “Will they say ‘Muhammad hath forged it? Answer: “Bring therefore a chapter like unto it, and call whom ye may to your assistance, besides Allah, if ye speak truth.”

This boast is echoed in the Hadith (Mishkat III, pg.664), which says:

“The Qur’an is the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world… This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.”

Muslims conclude that since there is no literary equivalent in existence, this proves that the Qur’an is a “miracle sent down from God, and not simply written by any one man.”

Ironically, we now know that many stories and passages in the Qur’an were borrowed, sometimes word-for-word, and sometimes idea-for-idea, from Second century apocryphal documents of Jewish and Zoroastrian origin (to be discussed later in this paper).

To support this elevated belief in their scripture, many Muslim Qur’anic translators have an inclination to clothe their translations in a style that is rather archaic and ‘wordy,’ so that the average person must run to the dictionary to enquire their meanings. Yet, these translations were not conceived hundreds of years ago. This is merely a ploy by the translators to give the text an appearance of dignity and age which, they hope, will in turn inspire trustworthiness.

In response, we must begin by asking whether the Qur’an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from Muslim Tradition that the Qur’an which we have today was not written by Muhammad but was collated and then copied by a group of men who, fourteen to twenty years after the fact, took what they found from the memory of others, as well as verses which had been written on bones, leaves and stones and then burned all evidence of any other copies. Where is the miracle in that?

More current research is now eradicating even this theory. According to the latest data, the Qur’an was not a document which was even given to Muhammad. Much of what is included in the Qur’an were additions which slowly evolved over a period of 150-200 years, until they were made a canon sometime in the eighth or ninth century. If this is true, and it looks to be the best theory which we have to date, then the authority for the Qur’an as a miracle sent down from heaven is indeed very slim.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s ask whether the Qur’an can be considered unique in its style and makeup.

The logic of the claim to its uniqueness, according to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, is spurious as:

“… It no more proves its inspiration than a man’s strength demonstrates his wisdom, or a woman’s beauty, her virtue. Only by its teachings, its principles, and content can a book be judged rightly; not by its eloquence, elegance, or poetic strength” (Shorrosh 1988:192).

Furthermore, one must ask what criteria is used for measuring one literary piece against the other. In every written language there must be a “best piece” of literature. Take for example the: Rig-Veda of India (1,000- 1,500 B.C.), or the eloquent poems in Greek, the Odyssey and the Iliad by Homer, or the Gilgamesh Epic, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead from Egypt, all which are considered classic masterpieces, and all of which predate the Qur’an.

Closer to home: would we compare Shakespeare’s works against that of the Qur’an? No! They are completely different genres. Yet, while few people today dispute the fact that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are the best written in the English language, no-one would claim they were therefore divine.

To show the futility of such an argument, it would not take a very brilliant person to quote from classical pieces of literature in rebuttal. They could use such examples as the prayer written by Francis of Assisi (from the 12th century), or the prayer of Thomas Aquinas (in the 13th century), or portions of our own scripture, such as the 23rd Psalm and other Psalms, or even point to the imagery found in the gospel of John, or the sophistication evidenced in the letter to the Romans, or the chapter on Love in 1 Corinthians 13. These could all make the claim to be superior to the Qur’an and some of them definitely are, but that is not the point. We know the authors of each of these pieces of literature, humble men all; men who would shudder if we would consider their writings somehow elevated to that of the divine.

To make this distinction more clear, compare for example:

1. sura 76:29-30 (sura or 16:93) and I Timothy 2:4, Luke 15:3-4, John 10:14,18.

2. sura 111 and Francis of Assisi’s prayer (see Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims, example no.11, pg.75).

3. suras 4:74,84; 5:33; 48:16-17 and Matthew 5:3-12.

4. sura 109 and Psalm 23.

5. sura 24:2 and John 8:3-12.

6. suras 2:222-223; 4:11,24,34,176 and Ephesians 5:22-25.

7. sura 9:29 and I Corinthians 13:4-7.

8. sura 33:53, 56-57 and Matthew 20:25-28.

9. suras 55:46-60; 56:22-26,35-38 and Revelation 21:1-8, 22-27; 22:1-6.

You may feel that the selection of the suras has been unfavorable in contrast to the quotations from the Bible and the prayer, and you are correct. But you must remember that the claim of the Qur’an is to “produce a chapter like it.” A chapter would mean any chapter, and certainly, as I have done here, those chapters which are similar in kind and content.

I am aware that the reverse could be done, that Biblical texts could be taken and opposed in similar fashion, but for what purpose? We make no claim, as has the Qur’an, that the Bible is superior to all pieces of literature.

In fact many statements and events described in the Bible are historical records, including quotations uttered by opponents of God, which do not necessarily reflect the consent, thought and will of God. Taken out of context such texts can and frequently are abused to support just about any view or opinion. Our intent here is to consider whether indeed the Qur’an has a superior style, such that it is unique among the scriptures of God. From what you now know, you, then, must decide.

E3: Its Literary Qualities

But what about the Qur’an’s supposed literary qualities?

While Christian or secular Arabic speakers are likely to appreciate the Qur’an’s poetic qualities, when anyone who is familiar with the Bible picks up a Qur’an and begins to read it through, there is the immediate recognition that he or she is dealing with an entirely different kind of literature than what is found in the Bible.

Whereas the Bible contains much historical narrative, the Qur’an contains very little. Whereas the Bible goes out of its way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Qur’an remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Bible, consisting of a library of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 years, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject and theme.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, interposed many times with little relationship to the preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that it is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it!

The German secular scholar Salomon Reinach in his harsh analysis, states that:

“From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it.” (Reinach 1932:176)

McClintock and Strong’s encyclopedia concludes that:

The matter of the [Koran] is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered. (McClintock and Strong 1981:151)

Even the Muslim scholar Dashti laments the literary defects of the Qur’an, saying:

“Unfortunately the Qur’an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged.”

He concludes that:

“All students of the Qur’an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation, as in ‘Ali ibn Taleb’s lost copy of the text” [Dashti 1985:28].

When reading a Qur’an, you will discover that the 114 suras not only have odd names for titles (such as the Cow, the Spoils, the Bee, or the Cave), but their layout is not at all in a chronological order. Size or length had more to do with the sequence of the suras than any other factor, starting with the longer suras and ending with the shortest. Even within the suras we find a mixed chronology. At times there is a mixture of Meccan and Medinan revelations within the same sura, so that even size is not an infallible guide in dating them.

Another problem is that of repetition. The Qur’an was intended to be memorized by those who were illiterate and uneducated since they could not read it. It therefore engages in the principal of endless repetition of the same material over and over again [Morey 1991:110]. This all leads to a good bit of confusion for the novice reader, and gives rise to much suspicion concerning its vaunted literary qualities.

In contrast to the Bible, which was written over several hundred years by a variety of authors, and flows easily from the creation of the world right through to the prophecies concerning the end of the universe; the Qur’an, supposedly written by just one man, Muhammad, during a span of a mere 20 years, seems to go nowhere and say little outside of the personal and political affairs of himself and his companions at one particular time in history.

With no logical connection from one sura to the next, one is left with a feeling of incompleteness, waiting for the story to give some meaning. Is it no wonder that many find it difficult to take seriously the claim by the Hadith that the Qur’an is “a book second to none in the world,” worthy of divine inspiration?

E4: Its Pure Arabic

Muslims believe that the Arabic language is the language of Allah. They also believe that the Qur’an, because it is perfect, is the exact representation of Allah’s words. For that reason only the Arabic Qur’an can be considered as authoritative. It, therefore, follows that those who do not know Arabic are still required to read and memorize the Qur’an in the Arabic language, as translations can never replace the language of Allah. Yet, is the Qur’an the Arabic document which Muslims claim it to be?

The answer is unequivocally “NO!” There are many foreign words or phrases which are employed in the Qur’an, some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others which do.

Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the [Koran], has gathered some 300 pages dealing with foreign words in the Qur’an, many of which must have been used in pre-Qur’anic Arabic, but quite a number also which must have been used little or not at all before they were included in the Qur’an. One must wonder why these words were borrowed, as it puts doubt on whether “Allah’s language” is sufficient enough to explain and reveal all that Allah had intended. Some of the foreign words include:

1. Pharaoh: an Egyptian word which means king or potentate, which is repeated in the Qur’an 84 times.

2. Adam and Eden: Accadian words which are repeated 24 times. A more correct term for “Adam” in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning “mankind.” “Eden” would be the word janna in Arabic, which means “garden.”

3. Abraham (sometimes recorded as Ibrahim): comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent would be Abu Raheem.

4. Persian words

   1. Haroot and Maroot are Persian names for angels.

   2. Sirat meaning “the path” has the Arabic equivalent, Altareeq.

   3. Hoor meaning “disciple” has the Arabic equivalent, Tilmeeth.

   4. Jinn meaning “good or evil demons” has the Arabic equivalent, Ruh.

   5. Firdaus meaning “the highest or seventh heaven” has the Arabic equivalent, Jannah.

5. Syriac words: Taboot, Taghouth, Zakat, Malakout are all Syriac words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

6. Hebrew words: Heber, Sakinah, Maoon, Taurat, Jehannim, Tufan (deluge) are all Hebrew words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

7. Greek words: Injil, which means “gospel” was borrowed, yet it has the Arabic equivalent, Bisharah. Iblis is not Arabic, but a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos.

8. Christian Aramaic: Qiyama is the Aramaic word for resurrection.

9. Christian Ethiopic: Malak (2:33) is the Ethiopic word for angel.

---

F: The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

Another claim by Muslims for the authority of the Qur’an is its universal application for all people and for all time. Yet is this the case?

There are many who believe that the Qur’an follows so closely the life and thought of the Arab world during the 7th-9th centuries, that indeed it was written for that specific environment, and not as a universal document for all peoples. suras 16:103; 26:195; and 42:7 point to its uniquely Arabic character.

In fact, the Qur’an, rather than being a universal document served to provide personal advantages for Muhammad. Examples of this can be found in suras: 33:36-38 (Zayd and Zaynab), 50-52 (rotation of wives and special privilege of Muhammad), 53-54 (privacy of Muhammad, and non marriage to his widows) and 66:1 (abstaining from wives or honey?-see Yusuf Ali’s note no.5529). Why would a document written for the benefit of all of humanity refer to personal incidents of one man? Do we find similar examples in the previous scriptures and prophets?

Indeed, it seems that Muhammad was the right prophet for the Arabs. He took their culture and universalized it. Take for instance these three examples:

1. The Arabs gloried in their language; Muhammad declared it the divine language, maintaining that the everlasting tablets in heaven recorded the original revelations in the Arabic script. Yet, he seemed to forget the fact that all the previous scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek and not Arabic.

2. The Arabs gloried in their traditional practices and customs of the desert; practices such as predatory war, slavery, polygamy, and concubinage. Muhammad impressed upon all these usages the seal of a divine sanction. Yet it is these very areas which have proved such a stumbling-block to the western world ever since, as they reflect little of the ethos of the preceding scriptures; an ethos which guides the laws and practices of much of the modern world today.

3. The Arabs gloried in the holiness of Mecca. Muhammad made it the only portal whereby men could enter paradise. Yet there is no extra-Qur’anic documentation that Mecca was much more than a small nondescript hamlet until well into the 7th century. It was not situated on the coast, nor did it have an adequate water supply, like its neighbour Taif, which, unlike Mecca, was well-known as a rest-stop on the caravan routes.

Therefore, one can say that Muhammad took the Arab people just as he found them, and while he applied some new direction, he declared much that they did to be very good and sacred from change (Shorrosh 1988:180).

There are other examples of a specific Arabic influence on the Qur’an; two of which are the status of women, and the use of the sword.

F1: The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

Women in the Qur’an have an inferior status to that of men. While the Qur’an permits women to participate in battle, it also allows a Muslim husband to cast his wife adrift without giving a single reason or notice, while the same right is not reserved for the woman. The husband possesses absolute, immediate, and unquestioned power of divorce (suras 2:224-230 and 33:49).

Women are to be absolutely obedient, and can be beaten (or scourged) for being rebellious in sura 4:34 (Yusuf Ali adds “lightly,” yet the Arabic does not allow this inclusion). No privilege of a corresponding nature is reserved for the wife. Men have double the inheritance of women (sura 4:11,176). In addition to the four wives allowed by law, a Muslim man can have an unlimited number of slave girls as concubines (or sexual partners) according to sura al-Nisa 4:24-25.

Even paradise creates inequalities for women. suras 55:56; 56:36 and 78:33 state that paradise is a place where there are beautiful young virgins waiting to serve the “righteous” (sura 78:31). These virgins, we are told, will have beautiful, big, lustrous eyes (sura 56:22); they will be Maidens who are chaste, who avert their eyes out of purity (sura 55:56, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5210), and have a delicate pink complexion (sura 55:58, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5211). Nowhere are we told what awaits the Muslim women of this world in paradise: the Muslim mothers and sisters. One wonders who these virgin maidens are, and where they come from?

With Qur’anic pronouncements such as we have read in the preceding chapters it is not surprising that much of the Muslim world today reflects in its laws and societal makeup such a total bias against women?

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the twenty-three countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only ten to twenty percent of all workers), seventeen are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the eleven countries with the worst record for disparagement of opportunity between men and women, ten are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in three Muslim countries: Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57).

Another revealing statistic shows that of the twelve states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, seven are Muslim states. The bottom three listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

While one may justifiably argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries, using the Qur’an as their foundation treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

With this kind of data before us we need to ask whether the Qur’an is God’s absolute word for all people for all time, and if so, then why only half of the world’s population (its males) receive full benefit from its laws, while the other half (its women) continue in an unequal relationship?

Does not the previous revelation, the Bible, have a more universalistic and wholesome concern for women? Take for instance Ephesians 5:22-25 where we find the true ideal for a relationship, saying: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.” This scripture demands a sacrificial love by the husband, one which puts the interests of the loved one before that of his own. This sacrificial love is best explained in 1 Corinthians 13:1,4-8.

It is understandable, then, why so many people in the West see Islam as an archaic and barbaric religion, which forces people back into the mentality of the middle ages, where women had no rights or freedoms to create their own destiny, and where men could do with their wives as they pleased.

F2: The “Sword” Found in the Qur’an

Concerning the ‘sword’ in the Qur’an, the testimony of Islam today is that of a religion which condones violence for the sake of Allah.

Though many Muslims try to deny this, they have to agree that there are ample examples of violence found not only within the Qur’an, but also exemplified within the life of the prophet Muhammad.

While in Mecca, Muhammad was surrounded by enemies, and while there he taught his followers toleration, according to sura 2:256, which says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error…” As a minor player, surrounded by enemies he did well to receive this ‘convenient’ revelation. But the call for toleration changed when his power was established in Medina, once the charter had been written which regulated life between the various differing groups.

Muhammad needed a livelihood for himself and those who had come with him from Mecca. Thus he undertook a number of “expeditions,” sending groups of his soldiers out to raid Meccan caravans in order to find booty.

Though there was a rule in the Hijaz at that time not to fight during the “holy month,” Muhammad, nonetheless sent a number of his troops to raid an unsuspecting trading caravan. This caused havoc in his own camp because a Meccan had been killed in the month in which bloodshed was forbidden. Promptly another ‘convenient revelation’ came which authorized the attack (read sura 2:217).

Later on, in 624 C.E., after having been in Medina for two years, a Meccan caravan of 1,000 men was passing close to the south-west of Medina. Muhammad, with only 300 men went out to attack it at the battle of Badr. He defeated the Meccans, and consequently received tremendous status, which helped his army grow.

The Medinans participated in further battles, some of which they won (i.e. the battle of the trenches) and others which they lost (the battle of Uhud). In fact, Muhammad himself is known to have conducted 27 battles and planned 39 others.

Muslims, however, continue to downplay any emphasis on violence within the Qur’an, and they emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War was only a means of defence, and was never used as an offensive act. Sahih Muslim III makes this point, saying, “the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity” (Sahih Muslim III, pg.938).

In the Mishkat II we find an explanation for Jihad:

“[Jihad] is the best method of earning both spiritual and temporal. If victory is won, there is enormous booty and conquest of a country which cannot be equalled to any other source of earnings. If there is defeat or death, there is ever-lasting Paradise and a great spiritual benefit. This sort of Jihad is conditional upon pure motive, i.e. for establishing the kingdom of Allah on earth (Mishkat II, pg.253) Also in Mishkat II we learn with regard to Jihad, that: Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said: To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger, and the remainder is for you (Muslim, Mishkat II, pg.412).”

The claim that Muslims acted only in self-defense is simply untrue. What were Muslims defending in North Africa, or Spain, France, India, Persia, Syria, Anatolia or the Balkans? These countries all had previous civilizations, many of which were more sophisticated than that of Islam, yet they all (outside of France) fell during the conquests of Islam in the first few hundred years, and their cultures were soon eradicated by that of Islam. Does that not evidence a rather offensive interpretation for Jihad?

We can understand the authority for this history when we read certain passages from the Qur’an, which, itself stipulates a particularly strong use of violence. The full impact of invective against the unbeliever can be found in sura 9:5 which says, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…” Of like nature is sura 47:4 which says, “When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…”

Similarly sura 9:29 states: “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden… until they pay tribute…” And in sura 8:39 we find, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression. And there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”

The murder of between 600-700 Banu Kuraiza Medinan Jewish males by the sword, and the slavery of their women give testimony to this sura (Nehls pg.117)

According to the Dictionary of Islam we read:

“When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim statethe payment of Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained “protection” and became Dhimmis, provided they were not idolaters, anddeath by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax.”

(Dictionary of Islam, pg.243).

War is sanctioned in Islam, with enormous rewards promised to those who fight for Allah, according to sura 4:74. Later in verse 84, Muhammad gives himself the divine order to fight. This is the verse which is the basis for calling Islam “the religion of the sword” (Shorrosh 1988:174).

In sura 5:33 the Qur’an orders those who fight Allah and his messenger to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off; or they can be expelled out of the land. In sura 48:16-17, we read that all who die “fighting in the ways of the Lord” (Jihad) are richly rewarded, but those who retreat are sorely punished.

The first blood shed under Muhammad was carried out by a blind disciple named Umair, who stabbed and killed a woman named Asma while she slept suckling her baby because she had criticized Muhammad with poetic verses. Upon hearing of this Muhammad said “Behold a man that hath assisted the Lord and His prophet. Call him not blind, call him rather ‘Umair,’ the seeing.” (Nehls pg.122).

Therefore, when those of us who are Christians read these suras, and see the example of the prophet himself, we find a total rejection of the previous teachings of Jesus who calls us to live in peace and put away the sword. We then are incredulous when we hear Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace. The record speaks for itself.

For those countries who aspire to use Islamic law, statistics prove revealing. According to the 1994 State of the World Atlas, while only five northern countries (i.e. western) are categorized as “Terror States” (those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture), twenty-eight of the thirty-two Muslim states fall into this category (except UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63).

Furthermore, it seems that most Muslim countries today are following the example of their prophet and are involved in some sort of armed conflict. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the western countries, yet only four Muslim countries out of the thirty-two have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only six out of the thirty-two have offered a list of sex offenses, and only four of the thirty-two have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate the claim which they make: that western states have a higher degree of degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the fourteen countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” nine of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-western Christian country.

Why, we wonder, are so many Muslim countries embroiled in so many wars, many of which are against other Muslims? Muslims answer that these are not good examples because they are not authentic Muslim states. Yet, can we not say that to the contrary, these countries do indeed follow the examples which we find so readily not only within the text of the Qur’an, but within the life of the prophet, and in the history of the first few centuries of Islam. Muhammad’s life, and the Qur’an which he gave to the world, both give sufficient authority for the sword in Islam. While this may cause the 20th century western Muslim to squirm uncomfortably, it cannot be denied that there is ample precedent for violence within their scriptures and within their own history. What we choose to ask, however, is whether the witness of violence within Islam exemplifies the heart of a loving and compassionate God, one who calls Himself merciful; or whether it rather exemplifies the character of 7th century Arabia, with all its brutal desert tribal disputes and warfare?

Compare the opposing concept of Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one kilometre, go with him two kilometres. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:38-44)

So what can we say about the authority of the Qur’an? Can we say it is a divinely inspired book sent by Allah for all of humanity, for all time? Can it claim supernatural as well as literary qualities, which not only place it above other revelations, but point to its divine origins? Much of what I have offered you here points to the fact that the Qur’an lacks in all three qualities, and seems to reflect more the life and times of its supposed mediator than that of the heart of a universal God. The idolatrous tendency of Muslims towards the Qur’an, as well as the confusion of its literary makeup, and the special conditions given to Muhammad, point to a book put together by one man, or as we now know, a group of much later men, than an inspired piece of God’s revealed word.

If one were to contrast the 66 books of the Bible written over hundreds of years by at least 40 different authors, with the Qur’an which came through one man, Muhammad, during his lifetime, there would be no contest as to which was the superior literature. In the final analysis, the Qur’an simply does not fit the breadth of vision, nor the literary style or structure of that found in the Old and New Testament. To go from the Bible to the Qur’an is to go from the superior to the inferior, from the authentic to the counterfeit, from God’s perspective to that of an individual, caught up and controlled by his own world and times.

I end this section with a quote from an expert on the Qur’an, Dr. Tisdall, who says:

“The Qur’an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.” (Tisdall 27)

---

G: The Collation, or Collection, of the Qur’anic Text

We now take the discussion concerning the authority for the Qur’an away from its makeup and ask the question of how it came to us. We will give special emphasis on the problems which we find with its collation. We will also ask why, if it is the Word of God, so much of its content is not only self-contradictory, but is in error with the facts as we know them? From there we will then consider where the Qur’an received much of its material, or from where many of its stories were derived. Let’s then begin with the alleged collection of the Qur’anic text.

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect in its textual history, that there are no textual defects (as they say we have in our Bible). They maintain that it is perfect not only in its content and style, but the order and script as we have it today is an exact parallel of the preserved tablets in heaven. This, they contend, is so because Allah has preserved it.

Therefore, the Qur’an, they feel, must be the Word of God. While we have already looked at the content and style of the Qur’an and found it wanting, the claim to its textual purity is an assertion which we need to examine in greater detail.

G1: The Periods of Revelation

According to Muslim Tradition the “revelations” of the suras (or books) were received by the prophet Muhammad, via the angel Jibril (Gabriel) within three periods. The first is referred to as the 1st Meccan period, and lasted between 611-615 C.E. During this time the suras contain many of the warnings, and much of the leading ideas concerning who Allah is, and what He expected of His creation (i.e. suras 1, 51-53, 55-56, 68-70, 73-75, 77-97, 99-104, 111- 114).

The 2nd period, referred to as the 2nd Meccan period (between 616-622 C.E.) had longer suras, dealing with doctrines, many of which echoed Biblical material. It was during this time that Islam makes the claim of being the one true religion (i.e. suras 6-7, 10-21, 23, 25-32, 34-46, 50, 54, 67, 71-72, 76).

The third period, referred to as the Medinan period (between 623-632 C.E.) centered in Medina and lasted roughly ten years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. There is a distinct shift in content during this period. Divine approval is given for Muhammad’s leadership, and much of the material deals with local historical events. There is a change from the preaching of divine matters, to that of governing. Consequently, the suras are much more political and social in their makeup (suras 2-5, 8-9, 22-24, 33, 37, 47-49, 57-59, 60-66, 98, 110).

G2: The Method of Collection

While there is ongoing discussion concerning whether Muhammad ever received any revelations, there is considerably more skepticism concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have today is indeed made up entirely of those revelations which he did supposedly receive.

Many Muslims ardently contend that the Qur’an which is in our hands today was in its completed form even before the death of Muhammad, and that the collation of the texts after his death was simply an exercise in amassing that which had already existed. There are even those who believe that many of the companions of the prophet had memorized the text, and it is they who could have been used to corroborate the final collation by Muhammad’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit. If these assertions are true, then indeed we do have a revelation which is well worth studying. History, however, points to quite a different scenario, one which most Muslims find it difficult to maintain.

Muslim Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so had made no preparations for the gathering of his revelations, in order to place them into one document. Thus, according to tradition, it was left up to Muhammad’s followers to write down what had been said.

Al Bukhari, a Muslim scholar of the 9th-10th century, and the most authoritative of the Muslim tradition compilers, writes that whenever Muhammad fell into one of his unpredictable trances his revelations were written on whatever was handy at the time. The leg or thigh bones of dead animals were used, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, and bark. And when there was nothing at hand the attempt was made by his disciples to memorize it as closely as possible.

The principle disciples at that time were: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, all of whom were close companions of Muhammad.

According to Sahih Bukhari, during the years following Muhammad’s death, passages of the Qur’an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur’an’s automatic completion as a revelation, now that its mediator had passed away, compelled a companion of the prophet named Hazrat Omar to suggest to the current caliph, Abu Bakr, that the existing revelations be collected.

Initially the aging caliph demurred, as he was not willing to do what the prophet had not done. However, he later changed his mind, due to the crisis caused by the death of the reciters at Yamama. The secretary of Muhammad, Zaid ibn Thabit was commissioned by Abu Bakr to collect the sayings of the prophet and put them into a document.

G2i: Zaid’s Collection

Zaid’s reply, according to Bukhari, is interesting. He is purported to have said that it would have been easier if they had demanded that he shift a mountain then collect the suras of the Qur’an. The reason for this rather odd statement becomes obvious when we find that, in his search for the passages of the Qur’an he was forced to use as his sources the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, bark, and the memories of the prophet’s companions (Bukhari, vol.6, pg.477).

This shows that there were no Muslims at that time who had memorized the entire Qur’an by heart, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an by heart, Zaid would only have had to go to any one of the companions and write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from these men who had memorized certain segments. He also had to refer to rather strange objects to find the ayas he needed. These are hardly reliable sources for a supposed “perfect” copy of the eternal tablets which exist in heaven.

What evidence, we ask, is there that his final copy was complete? It is immediately apparent that the official copy of the Qur’an rested on very fragile sources. There is no way that anyone can maintain with certainty that Zaid collected all the sayings of the prophet. Had some of the objects been lost, or thrown away? Did some of the ayas die with the companions who were killed at the battle of Yamama? We are left with more questions then answers.

In Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, page 478) Zaid is quoted as saying that he found the last verses of sura 9 (verses 128 and 129) from a certain individual. Then he continues by saying that he found this verse from no-one else. In other words there was no-one else who knew this verse. Thus had he not traced it from this one man, he would not have traced it at all!

This leads us to only one possible conclusion: that we can never be sure that the Qur’an which was finally compiled was, in fact, complete! Zaid concedes that he had to find this one verse from this one man. This underlines the fact that there was no-one who knew the Qur’an by heart, and thus could corroborate that Zaid’s copy was complete.

Consequently the final composition of the Qur’an depended on the discretion of one man; not on the revelation of God, but on an ordinary fallible man, who put together, with the resources which he had available, what he believed to be a complete Qur’an. This flies in the face of the bold claim by Muslims that the book is now, and was then, complete.

Zaid’s text was given to Hafsah, one of the wives of Muhammad, and the daughter of Umar, the 2nd Caliph. We then pick up the story with the reign of Uthman, the 3rd Caliph.

G2ii: Competing Collections

In Sahih Bukhari, (vol. 6, pg.479) we read that there were at this time different readings of the Qur’an in the different provinces of the Muslim world. A number of the companions of Muhammad had compiled their own codices of the text. In other words, though Zaid had collated the official text under Abu Bakr, there were other texts which were circulating which were considered authoritative as well.

The two most popular codices were those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, whose manuscript became the standard for the area of Iraq, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, whose manuscript became standard in Syria.

These and other extant codices were basically consistent with each other in their general content, but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts such that no two codices were entirely the same (which we’ll talk about later).

In addition, the texts were being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world. During the 7th century, Arabic was composed in a so-called scriptio defectiva in which only the consonants were written. Since there was no vowels, the vocalization was left to the reader. Some verbs could be read as active or passive, while some nouns could be read with different case endings, and some forms could be read as either nouns or verbs.

G3: The Standardization of One Text

Consequently, during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph, a deliberate attempt was made to standardize the Qur’an and impose a single text upon the whole Muslim community.

The codex of Zaid ibn Thabit, taken from the manuscript of Hafsah, was chosen by Uthman for this purpose, to the consternation of both Mas’ud and Ibn Ka’b. Zaid ibn Thabit was a much younger man, who had not yet been born at the time Mas’ud had recited 70 suras by heart before Muhammad.

According to Muslim tradition Zaid’s codice was chosen by Uthman because the language used, the ‘Quraishi dialect,’ was local to Mecca, and so had become the standard Arabic. Tradition maintains that Zaid, along with three scholars of the Quraishi tribe of Mecca, had written the codice in this Quraishi dialect, as it had been revealed to Muhammad in this dialect. Linguists today, however, are still at a quandary to know what exactly this Quraishi dialect was, as it doesn’t exist today and therefore cannot be identified. Furthermore, the dialect which we find in the present Qur’an does not differ from the language which was current in other parts of the Hijaz at that time. While it makes for a good theory, it has little historical evidence with which to back it up.

A further reason for the choice of Zaid’s codice, according to tradition, was that it had been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, and so had not attracted the publicity as one of the varying texts, as had the codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Ironically, by virtue of their popularity, Mas’ud’s and Ka’b’s codices were rejected as sources for the final Qur’an and supplanted by the codice of an individual who neither had the notoriety, nor the experience, and whose text (as we shall soon discover) had never been selected as authoritative by the prophet, as had the other two.

Consequently, copies of Zaid’s codice were then sent out and dispersed throughout every Muslim province, while all the other manuscripts were summarily destroyed.

It is evident from this discussion that the final choice for an authoritative text had little to do with its authenticity, but had more to do with the fact that it was not a controversial manuscript. It is also evident that there were no two Qur’ans which existed at that time which were exactly alike. This tradition tells us that other whole copies did exist, yet not one of the other texts were spared the order for their destruction. We must conclude that the destruction of the other manuscripts was a drastic effort to standardize the Qur’anic text. While we may have one standard text today, there is no proof that it corresponds with the original. We can only say that it may possibly be similar to the Uthmanic recension, a recension which was one of many. Yet, what evidence is there that in all instances it was the correct one? We don’t know as we have no others with which to compare.

G4: The Missing Verses

This then brings up another difficult problem: how can we be sure that what Zaid ibn Thabit included in his codice (or manuscript) contained the full revelation of Muhammad’s revelation? The fact is we simply cannot. We are forced to rely on Muslim tradition to tell us. Yet, interestingly, it is Muslim tradition which informs us that Zaid himself initially cast doubt on his own codice.

G4i: Sura 33:23

According to Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, pg.79), despite the fact that Zaid’s text had been copied out and sent to the seven different cities, Zaid suddenly remembered that a verse which the prophet had quoted earlier was missing from his text. Zaid is quoted as saying that this missing verse was verse 23 of sura 33, which says, “Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.” So he searched for the verse until he found it with Hussaima ibn al Ansari.

Thus, we find that after the copies had been sent out claiming to be the only authentic and complete copies of the Qur’an available, Zaid, and he alone, recorded a verse which was missing; a verse which, once again, was only found with one man. This resembles the previous occasion where a verse was only found with one man.

The conclusion is obvious: initially all of those seven copies which were sent out to the provinces were imperfect. But even more concerning is the fact that it was due to the recollection of one man, and the memory of another that the Qur’an was finally completed. Once again it is obvious that there simply could not have been any man at that time who knew the whole Qur’an by heart. This is yet another instance which contradicts the argument posed by Muslims that the Qur’an had been memorized by certain men during the early days of Islam.

But of more importance is the troubling question of whether there were perhaps other verses which were overlooked or were left out. The answer to this question can be found in another of the authoritative traditions, that of Sahih Muslim.

G4ii: The Verse on Stoning

Muslim maintains that key passages were missing from Zaid’s text. The most famous is the verse of stoning. All the major traditions speak of this missing verse. According to Ibn Ishaq’s version (pg. 684) we read:

“God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, ‘We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.”

Therefore, according to Umar, the stoning verse was part of the original Qur’an, the revelation which Allah sent down. But now it is missing. In many of the traditions we find numerous reports of adulterous men and women who were stoned by the prophet and his companions. Yet today we read in the Qur’an, sura 24:32 that the penalty for adultery is 100 lashes. Umar said adultery was not only a capital offence, but one which demanded stoning. That verse is now missing from the Qur’an, and that is why Umar raised this issue.

Muslims will need to ask themselves whether indeed their Qur’an can claim to be the same as that passed down by Muhammad to his companions? With evidence such as this the Qur’an in our possession today becomes all the more suspect.

G5: The Variations Between the Codices

Yet that is not all. Another glaring problem with Zaid’s text is that it differed from the other codices which coexisted with his.

Arthur Jeffery has done the classic work on the variants of the early codices in his book Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an, printed in 1937. The three main codices which he lists are those which we have referred to earlier, and include:

1. Ibn Mas’ud (‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud) (died 653), from Kufa, in Iraq. It is he who is reported to have learned 70 suras directly from Muhammad, and was appointed by Muhammad as one of the first teachers of Qur’anic recitation (according to Ibn Sa’d). Mas’ud became a leading authority on the Qur’an and hadith in Kufa, Iraq. He refused to destroy his copy of the Qur’an or stop teaching it when the Uthmanic recension was made official.

2. Ubayy b. Ka’b (died 649) a Medinan Muslim who was associated with Damascus, Syria. Prior to that he was a secretary for the prophet, and was considered by some to be more prominent than Mas’ud in Qur’anic understanding, during the prophet’s lifetime. Ubayy’s codice had two extra suras. He destroyed his codice after the Uthmanic recension.

3. Abu Musa (died 662), a Yemenite, though his codice was accepted in Basra, where he served as governor under Umar. His codex was large and it contained the two extra suras of Ubayy’s codex, and other verses not found in other codices (Jeffery, pp.209-211).

In addition to these three Jeffery classifies 12 other codices belonging to the companions of the prophet, which were considered as primary.

One of these Ali b. Abi Talib (d.661) a cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, is said to have been the first to collect the Qur’an after the prophet’s death, and to have arranged the suras in some sort of chronological order.

According to Jeffery, there were thousands of variations between the different codices.

G5i: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

Take for instance the codice of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, a very close companion of the prophet, according to the traditions. As we know it was he who refused to hand over his manuscript after the order went out from Uthman for all existing copies to be burned.

There is much evidence today to show that, in fact, his text is far more reliable than Hafsah’s manuscript, which we know to be the one collated by Zaid ibn Thabit. Ibn Mas’ud alone was present with Muhammad when he reviewed the content of the Qur’an every year during the month of Rammadan.

In the well-known collection of traditions by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.441), we read these words:

“Ibn Abbas asked, ‘Which of the two readings of the Qur’an do you prefer?’ [The prophet] answered, ‘The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.’ Verily the Qur’an was recited before the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas’ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.”

Thus no-one knew the Qur’an better then he did. In the same tradition by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.442) it says:

“No sura was revealed but I [Mas’ud] knew about it and what was revealed. If I had known anyone knowing more of the book of Allah than me, I would have gone to him.”

Ibn Mas’ud lays claim here to be the foremost authority of the text of the Qur’an. In fact, it is Sahih Muslim (vol. 4, pg.1312) who informs us that Mas’ud knew seventy suras by heart, and was considered to have a better understanding of the Qur’an then the other companions of the prophet. He recited these seventy passages before the prophet and the companions, and no-one disputed with him.

In Sahih Bukhari (vol. 5, pgs.96-97) we read that Muhammad himself singled out Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as the first and foremost authority on the Qur’an.

According to Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.444) Mas’ud learned his seventy suras while Zaid was still a youth. Thus his authority should have been greater as he knew so much of the Qur’an long before Zaid became a man.

Arthur Jeffery in his book points out several thousand variants taken from over thirty “main sources.” Of special note are those which he found between the codex of Ibn Mas’ud and that of Zaid ibn Thabit. He also found that Mas’ud’s codex agreed with the other codices which existed at the expense of Zaid’s text (while we don’t have the time to go into all the variations, it might be helpful if you could obtain a copy of Arthur Jeffrey’s book: Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an).

According to Jeffery, Abu Mas’ud’s Codex was different from the Uthmanic text in several different ways:

1. It did not contain the Fatiha (the opening sura, sura 1), nor the two charm suras (suras 113 and 114).

2. It contained different vowels within the same consonantal text (Jeffery 25-113).

3. It contained Shi’ite readings (i.e. suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19) (Jeffery 40,65,68).

4. Entire phrases were different, such as:

   1. sura 3:19: Mas’ud has “The way of the Hanifs” instead of “Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam.”

   2. sura 3:39: Mas’ud has “Then Gabriel called to him, ‘O Zachariah’”, instead of the Uthmanic reading: “Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary.”

   3. Only his codice begins sura 9 with the Bismilah, while the Uthmanic text does not (“bismi ‘llahi ‘l-rahmani ‘l-rahim” meaning, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”).

5. Finally, the order of the suras in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex is different from the Uthmanic text in that Mas’ud’s list arranges the suras more closely in order of descending length.

G5ii: Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

Ubayy Ka’b’s codex also had variations. Though there are those who disagree, it seems to have been less important than Ibn Mas’ud’s, as it was not the source of any secondary codices.

It included two suras not found in the Uthmanic or Ibn Mas’ud’s texts: the surat al-Khal’, with three verses, and surat al-Hafd, with six verses (Jeffery pg. 180ff). Al-Fadl b. Shadhan is said to have seen a copy of Ubayy’s 116 suras (rather than the 114 of Uthman’s) in a village near Basra in the middle of the 3rd century A.H. (10th century C.E.).

The order of suras in Ubayy’s codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman’s.

G6: Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

These variations in the codices show that the original text of the Qur’an cannot have been perfect. The fact that a little known secretary (Zaid ibn Thabit) was chosen as the final arbiter of the Qur’anic text points to possible political interference. The admission by this secretary that the task of collating the verses was unduly daunting and his consequent pronouncement that one verse was initially missing from his finished text (sura 33:23) while another verse, according to authoritative sources, is still missing (the stoning verse) puts even more suspicion on its authenticity.

On top of that, the many variations which exist between Zaid’s text and those of supposedly more authoritative collators (Mas’ud and Ka’b) can only add to the perception of many today that the Uthmanic Qur’an which we supposedly have today leaves us with more doubt than assurance for its authority as the perfect word of God.

Yet that is not all. We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur’an had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph’s standard for a single approved text even after Uthman’s death. This was carried out by al-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, which were later reduced to seven readings.

If the other codices were in existence today, one could compare the one with the other to ascertain which could claim to be closest to the original. Even Hafsah’s copy, the original from which the final text was taken, was later destroyed by Mirwan, the governor of Medina. But for what reason???

Does this act not intimate that there were problems between the other copies, possibly glaring contradictions, which needed to be thrown out? Can we really believe that the rest were destroyed simply because Uthman wished to have only one manuscript which conformed to the Quraishi dialect (if indeed such a dialect existed)? Why then burn the other codices? If, as some contend today, the other codices were only personal reminisces of the writers, then why did the prophet give those codices so much authority during his lifetime? Furthermore, how could Uthman claim to judge one from the other now that Muhammad was no longer around?

There are certain scholars today who believe that Zaid ibn Thabit and his co-workers could have reworked the Arabic, so as to make the text literately sophisticated and thus seemingly superior to other Arabic works of its time; and thus create the claim that this was indeed the illiterate Muhammad’s one miracle.

There are others, such as John Wansbrough from SOAS, who go even further, contending that all of the accounts about companion codices and individual variants were fabricated by later Muslim jurists and philologers. He asserts that the collection stories and the accounts of the companion codices arose in order to give an ancient authority to a text that was not even compiled until the 9th century or later.

He feels that the text of the Qur’an was so fluid that the multiple accounts (i.e. of the punishment stories) represent “variant traditions” of different metropolitan centres (such as Kufa, Basra, Medina etc.), and that as late as the 9th century a consonantal textus receptus ne varietur still had not been achieved. Today, his work is taking on greater authority within scholarly circles.

Unfortunately we will never know the real story, because the originals (if indeed they ever existed) which could have told us so much were destroyed. All we have are the copies written years after the originals by those who were then ordered to destroy their originals. There are, therefore, no manuscripts to compare with to give the current Qur’an authenticity, as we have with the Bible.

For those who may wonder why this is so important, let me provide an example: If after I had read this paper out-loud, everyone was to then write down all I had said from memory when they returned home, there would certainly be a number of variations. But we could find out these variations by putting them all together and comparing the many copies one against the other, as the same errors would not be written at the same place by everyone. The final result would be a rendering which is pretty close to what I had said originally. But if we destroyed all of the copies except one, there would be no means of comparing, and all precision would be lost. Our only hope would be that the one which remained was as close to what I had said as possible. Yet we would have no other rendering or example to really know for sure.

Consequently, the greater number of copies preserved, the more certitude we would have of the original text. The Qur’an has only one doctored manuscript to go on, while the New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts in existence, from a variety of backgrounds, from which to compare!!! Can you see the difference?!

It is therefore quite clear that that which is known as the Textus Receptus of the Qur’an (the text considered authoritative in the Muslim world today) cannot lay claim to be the Textus Originalis (the genuine original text).

The current Qur’anic text which is read throughout the Muslim world is merely Zaid’s version, duly corrected where necessary, and later amended by al-Hajjaj. Consequently, the ‘official’ text as it currently stands was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardization of a preferred text at the initiative of one caliph, and not by a prophetic direction of divine decree.

In conclusion one can safely say that there is relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. There is, however, no evidence to support the cherished Muslim hypothesis that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, as so many Muslims claim (For further reading see Jam’ al-Qur’an, by Gilchrist).

Yet, even if we were to let the issue rest, concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have now is the same as that which Muhammad related to his followers, we would still need to ask whether its authority might not be impinged upon due to the numerous errors and contradictions which can be found within its pages. It is to that question that we now proceed.

---

H: The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

The abrogation of Qur’anic verses presents a problem for Muslims today. As we all know, a man can make mistakes and correct them, but this is not the case with God. God has infinite wisdom and cannot contradict himself. Abrogation flies is the face of sura 6:34 (and 10:65) which state:

“…There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.” An even more damaging pronouncement is made in sura 4:82 which reads, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies.”

Muslim authorities try to explain the internal contradictions in the Qur’an by stating that certain passages of the Qur’an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later than themselves. The verses which replace them are referred to as Nasikh. Yet, there is by no means any certainty as to which disagreeing verses are mansukh and which are nasikh, since the order in which the Qur’an was written down was not done chronologically but according to the length of the suras.

From the preceding section we have found that even the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then could we know which were the more authoritative?

The law of abrogation is taught by the Qur’an in sura 2:106,108, stating: “We substitute one revelation for another…” This is echoed in sura 17:86, which reads, “If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration.” In sura 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Jalalu’d-Din estimated the number of abrogations at between 5 to 500. Others say it stands closer to 225. What this shows us is that the science of abrogation is an inexact science indeed, as no-one really knows how many of the verses are to be abrogated. Underlying this claim of abrogation is another concern: How can a divine revelation be improved upon? Would it not have been perfect from the start?

Yusuf Ali in his defense of abrogation claims that there is a need for progressive revelation within scripture, saying: “its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time”. Christians believe in progressive revelation as well, as God reveals and changes His will for a people as they change culturally over a period of generations. The problem with suras 2:106, 17:86 and 16:101 is that they do not refer to revelations given prior to Muhammad, but refer uniquely to the Qur’anic verses themselves. One cannot claim progressive revelation within a space of only 20 years (this was the time in which the Qur’an was written). The period found in the previous scriptures spans 1,500 years! People and cultures change in that amount of time. Thus the revelations would reflect those changes. To demand the same for a revelation of a mere 20 years suggests that God is not all-knowing. The only other option can be that the recorder made corrections, and then came up with a revelation to authenticate those corrections. While you decide, let’s look at some of these abrogations.

Some examples of these abrogations are:

1. In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the Qibla, the direction of prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, and back to Mecca.

2. The inheritance laws in suras 4:7; & 2:180, provides an equal share for women and men, and then is doubled for men in sura 4:11.

3. The change of night prayers from a full night in sura 73:2-4, to a half or less, or whatever was easy to do in sura 73:20.

4. The change of punishment for adulteresses, beginning with life imprisonment, found in sura 4:15, and then changed to 100 strokes by flogging, according to sura 24:2. Remember that these two examples make no mention of the previous ‘missing’ aya which prescribes the stoning for those who commit adultery. It is also interesting to note that Homosexuals were let off if they repented, according to sura 4:16, though this same allowance was not given for heterosexuals.

5. The change of the retaliation laws where retaliation for the crime (murder) was confined to people of equal rank (i.e. slave for slave) in sura 2:178, then it was to be carried out only against the murderer by the heir, sura 17:33 (note: Ali adds Qisas and forgiving to the Arabic).

6. The change of the days of creation from 6 (7:54; 25:59) to 8 (41:9- 12).

7. The change of the hierarchy of prophets, where they were initially equal (suras 3:84;2:285;2:136) and then some are elevated above the others, sura 2;253 (see Ali’s note:289).

8. The changes in intercession; at first done by angels and Muhammad (suras 42:5; 24:62), and then were not acceptable to Allah (suras 74:48; 63:5; 34:23).

9. The Sword verses: the Call to “fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them” (sura 9:5); or “strike off their heads in battle” (sura 47:5); or “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (sura 9:29); or “Fight then… until the religion be all of it Allah’s” (sura 8:39); or “a grievous penalty against those who reject faith” (sura 9:3). These all contradict “There is no compulsion in religion” (sura 2:256).

10. Sura 2:184 first allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast by feeding an indigent. The following verse (185) allows no compensation.

11. Widows were to keep themselves apart for 4 months and 10 days after their husband’s death (sura 2:234), which is then changed to one year (2:240).

12. Sura 2:106 contradicts sweeping changes which follow: in the Qibla (vss.115,177,124-151), pilgrimage rites (vs.158), dietary laws (vss.168-174) law of talio (vss.178-179), in bequests (vss.180-182), the fast (vss.182-187), and the pilgrimage again (vss.196-203).

13. Sura 16:101 contradicts changes which follow in dietary laws (vss.114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124).

14. Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him (sura 87:6-7), is then changed to withdrawing that which Allahs wills to withdraw (i.e. revelations) (17:86).

15. Allah commits himself as law to act mercifully, which implies cause and effect (sura 6:12), yet later in the same sura we find that “If Allah willed, he could have brought them all together to the guidance… Whom Allah will he sendeth astray, and whom he will he placeth on a straight path” (vss. 35 & 39).

16. Concerning predestination, in sura 57:22 we find the words, “No evil befalls on the earth, nor on your own souls but it is in a book before We bring into existence.” And in sura 76:29-31 it says, “..whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord, Yet ye will not, unless Allah willeth… He maketh whom He will to enter His mercy…” Both of these contradict sura 42:30, which states, “Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned.”

17. In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

18. Muhammad was the first to bow down to Allah (i.e. the first Muslim) (sura 6:14,164; 39:12). Yet these passages forget that Abraham, his sons and Jacob were former Muslims (sura 2:132) as were all the earlier prophets (sura 28:52-53), and Jesus’ disciples (3:52).

19. Allah curses all liars, yet permits Muhammad to break an oath (sura 66:1-2), and though Allah alone may be worshipped, he demands Satan and the angels to worship Adam, with the result that Satan is eternally punished because he refused to do so (sura 2:32).

20. An abrogation evidenced by Muslims today is the claim that the Bible (which they admit is a revealed book) has been altered and corrupted. Yet sura 10:65 reads, “There is no changing in the Words of Allah,” and sura 6:33,34 reads, “There is none that can alter the decisions (revelations) of Allah.”

21. In sura 17:101 we find 9 plagues (or signs), whereas in sura 7:133 only 5 are listed (note Ali’s footnote no.1091 which adds the rod and leprous hand from verses 107 and 108, as well as the drought and short crops of verse 130 as plagues, to make up the nine).

22. In sura 51:57 we find that Jinn were created to worship Allah, yet in sura 7:176 we find that the Jinn were created for Hell.

23. In sura 17:103 we are told that Pharaoh was drowned with his army, yet in sura 10:90-92, upon admitting to the power of God, he is rescued as a sign to others.

24. Angels are commanded by Allah to bow down to Adam in suras 15:29-30; 20:116, which they do, yet Allah prohibits anyone worshipping any but him (suras 4:116; 18:110).

25. Lust is condemned in sura 79:40-41, yet in sura 4:24-25 Allah permits polygamy, divorce, and the use of female slaves as concubines (one needs to ask why a man needs a concubine if not to satisfy his lust). Furthermore, for those who are faithful lust is the primary, and unlimited reward in heaven (suras 55:46-78; 56:11-39). Surely if lust is wrong on earth and hateful to a Holy God, it cannot be pleasing to him in paradise.

26. On that same note, wine is forbidden while on earth (sura 5:91), yet rivers of wine await the faithful in paradise (suras 47:15; 76:5; 83:25)

27. Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved.

28. In sura 4:157 we read that Jesus did not die, yet in sura 19:33 we read that not only did he die, but he arose again! (note: Yusuf Ali has no rebuttal here, but in his footnote no.2485 refers to sura 19:15, which repeats the same words for Yahya, and then refers the reader to sura 4:157-a vivid example of using a Nasikh verse to abrogate one which is Mansukh in order to get out of a “jam”).

Some of these may not be serious contradictions, were it not for the claim that the Qur’an is “nazil” which means “brought down” from heaven without the touch of human hand. This implies that the original “un-created” preserved tablets in heaven, from which the Qur’an proceeds (sura 85:22), also contains these abrogations. How can they then claim to be Allah’s eternal word?

Equally disturbing is what this implies concerning the character of God. For, if Allah in the Qur’an manifests himself as the arbitrary God who acts as he pleases without any ties even to his own sayings, he adds a thought totally foreign to the former revelation which Muhammad claimed to confirm. Indeed, these abrogations degrade the integrity of the former revelations which were universally applicable to all peoples, for all time. The Qur’anic abrogations on the other hand fit the requirements of one specific man and his friends, for one specific place, and one specific time.

---

I: Errors Found Within the Qur’an

For centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur’an has been preserved in its original Arabic form since the beginning of time itself, and preserved intact from the period of the “sending down” of the book to Muhammad, right on down till the present. They have been taught that the text which we read now was uniquely inspired, in that there were no intermediary agents who could possibly pollute the integrity of the script.

At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur’an must be the Word of God, as no one but Allah could have created and preserved such a perfected text. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar willing to make any critical analysis of its content or of its structure, as to do so would usually be detrimental to his or her health. However, when an analysis is made by a Western scholar upon the Qur’an, that analysis is roundly castigated as being biased from the outset, and even “satanic,” and therefore, unworthy of a reply.

But that does not stop the analysis from being undertaken, for the Qur’an when held up to scrutiny finds itself lacking in many areas.

As we have already discussed, we find problems with its sources, its collation, its literary makeup, its supposed uniqueness, and problems even with its content. It is not difficult to find numerous contradictions within the Qur’an, a problem which Muslims and the Qur’an has attempted to alleviate by conveniently allowing for the ‘law of abrogation.’ But even more devastating towards the integrity of this supposed perfect ‘divine book,’ are the numerous errors which are found in its pages. It is therefore to those errors which we will now turn in our continuing quest to ascertain whether, indeed, the Qur’an can claim to be the true, and “perfect” Word of God, as Muslims have so often maintained since the very inception of their faith.

I1: Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

Many errors are found in the Qur’an which contradict the Biblical account. In the previous section we discussed a number of these contradictions in some detail, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say, that because the Qur’an followed these scriptures and made the claim to protect them (suras 6:34; 10:65; and sura 4:82) its integrity is put into doubt when it fails to adhere to the content of the very scriptures it claims to protect and confirm. Some contradictions I will mention, however, because they give doubt to the veracity of its content.

I1i: Moses

The first concerns the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s wife (in sura 28:9). This story contradicts the Biblical Exodus 2:10 version, which states that it was Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted Moses. It is important to note here that had Pharaoh’s wife adopted Moses, he would have consequently been adopted by Pharaoh himself, making him heir to the throne. This fact alone makes the subsequent story of Moses’s capture and exile rather incredulous.

I1ii: Yahya

According to the Qur’an, no-one bore the name of Yahya before John the Baptist (sura 19:7). Yet, we find that name mentioned in the Old Testament (2 Kings 25:23) implying that it was a well known name hundreds of years before the writing of the Qur’an.

It is interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his translation of sura 19:7 tries to circumvent this problem by translating this aya as, “on no-one by that name have We conferred distinction before.” Yet, the word ‘distinction’ does not appear in the Arabic at all. Is a translator permitted to change a text like this to correct an error? Obviously not! Ali is playing a dangerous game here. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims refer to all English translations as simply interpretations. In his note (no.2461) Ali attempts to explain the problem by assuming that “Allah had, for the first time, called one of His elect by that name.” It would have been better had he left the text stand as it was written.

I1iii: Trinity

The Qur’an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. The author of sura 5:116 mistakenly thought that Christians worshipped three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). But Christians don’t worship this doctrine of the Trinity at all! There was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Choloridians, who had a concept of the Trinity which included Mary, who would have been in Arabia during the time of Muhammad. They are possibly the source for this obvious error.

Another error is also found in sura 5:73-75, where the Qur’an says, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three…” Obviously the accusation is against Christians, yet Christians do not believe God is one of three! We believe that God is one. Yusuf Ali does a grave injustice in his translation by adding the phrase, “Allah is one of three in a trinity.” The words “in a trinity” do not exist in the Arabic text! Ali puts it into his translation in an attempt to avoid the rather obvious mistake that Christians believe in three gods.

I1iv: Ezra

The Qur’an in sura 5:72 makes the mistake of claiming that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I2: Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors:

Some errors point to internal contradictions within the Qur’an itself. I have dealt with these in another paper as well, and so will only list them here to jog your memory.

I2i: Mary & Imran:

One of the best known errors is that concerning the confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur’an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in suras 19:28; 66:12; 20:25-30), though the two, Mary and Miriam, lived 1,570 years apart.

I2ii: Haman

Another well known passage is that of Haman. In the Qur’an Haman is referred to as a servant of Pharaoh, who built a high tower to ascend up to the God of Moses (sura 28:38; 29:38; 40:25,38). But the Babel tower occurs 750 years earlier (Genesis 11), and the name Haman is correctly found in the story of Esther in Babylon, 1,100 years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali believes that the reference here is simply that of another Haman, yet Haman is not an Egyptian name, but uniquely Babylonian.

I3: Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

There are other stories in the Qur’an which do not stand up to the secular data which is available. These errors are possibly the most damaging for the credibility of the Qur’an as the perfect ‘Word of God’ because their veracity can be measured against the test of observable data, which is by definition neutral and binding.

I3i: Ishmael

The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham’s nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob’s twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham’s third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur’an.

I3ii: Samaritan

The Qur’an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term ‘Samaritan’ was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to “Samiri” and Pickthall to “As Samirii,” Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it “Samaritan.” Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, “bends over backwards” to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean “Shemer,” which denotes a stranger, or “Shomer,” which means a watchman, the equivalent of “Samara” in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of “Periklytos,” or the word “Machmad” which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

I3iii: Sunset

In sura 18:86 it states, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness.” It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring.

I3iv: Issa

The name for Jesus in the Qur’an is given as “Issa.” Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly “all-knowing” Qur’an has no mention of it.

I3v: Mountains

Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For pre-scientific man this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would have seemingly, a stabilizing effect on the earth. Yet we now know this logic to be quite inaccurate. Mountains do not render the earth’s crust stable. In fact, the very existence of mountains is evidence of instability in the earth’s crust, as they are found and pushed up by the colliding of tectonic plates (i.e. the migration of Arabia toward Iran has resulted in the Zagros range, France pushing against Italy produced the Alps, and the Indian plate nudging Tibet has given us the Himalayas).

I3vi: Alexander the Great

In sura 18:83-100 we find the story of Dhu al Qarnayn, who is known as the Greek conqueror, Alexander the Great. According to this sura, his power was given to him by Allah (aya 84), which some Muslims contend is an assertion that he had the same prominence as a prophet. But of even more importance to our discussion is the contention, according to this sura, that he was credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out (aya 96).

It is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander’s exploits. From their writings we know that Aristotle was his tutor. Yet, these historians equivocally make him out as a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death at the early age of 33. They show that he was an idolater, and actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. How, therefore, could he be considered to have the same prominence as a prophet, or even, as aya 84 clearly asserts, that Allah was the agent for his power?

Yet, what is even more troubling, there is no historical evidence anywhere that he built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which, indeed, would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders or engineers in the history of mankind.

When we find the Qur’an so inaccurate in regard to Alexander, whose history is well known, we hesitate to accept as valuable or even as reliable the statements of the Qur’an about other matters of past history.

I3vii: Creation

Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore, in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles.

I3viii: Pharaoh’s Cross

In sura 7:124 we find Pharoah admonishing his sorcerers because they believe in the superiority of Moses’s power over theirs. Pharoah threatens them with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, and then says they will all die on the cross. But their were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practised by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after Pharaoh!

I3ix: Other Scientific problems

1. Sura 16:66 mentions that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. What does this mean?

2. In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?

3. sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?

4. sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).

5. sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the “farthest Mosque” during his journey by night (the Mi’raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir ‘Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad’s death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

I4: Absurdities

There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur’an.

I4i: Man’s Greatness

Sura 4:59 states,”Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.” This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man’s greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God’s image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

I4ii: Seven Earths

Sura 65:12 reads, “It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths.” We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

I4iii: Jinns & Shooting stars:

Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur’an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.

How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non- material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?

I4iv: Solomon’s power over nature:

1. Birds and ants King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah’s army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).Note: According to the historical record, Abrah’s army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).

2. Jinn The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

3. Wind The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month’s journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura 3:11; 21:81).

4. Ants talk The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

I4v: Youth and dog sleep 309 years

Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali’s attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).

The object of this story is to show Allah’s power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.

I4vi: People become apes

In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur’an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled “Planet of the Apes” rather then the other way around.

I4vii: Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

In suras 11:81-83; 15:74 the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down and rained upon with clay-like brimstone, upon whose surface were marked the destiny of the wicked people who lived there.

I4viii: Jacob’s Smell & Sight:

In sura 12:93-96 Joseph sends his coat to his father as proof of his existence. But as the caravan leaves Egypt, Jacob, who is in Canaan smells Joseph, who is hundreds of miles away (aya 94). Then the coat, when it arrives, is placed over the face of his father Jacob and suddenly he receives his sight. Now we know why Andrew Lloyd Weber added the word “amazing” to the title of his musical, “Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

I4ix: Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man:

In sura 16:12-15 the day and night as well as the Sun and Moon are surprisingly all made subject to man. That would imply that we had control over the rotation of our planet, as well as the entire movement of our solar system (Yusuf Ali’s explanation of this odd pronouncement in note no.2031 is rather interesting).

I5: Grammatical Errors

Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is the Word of God, it is without error in all areas. We have already dealt with the questions concerning the style and literary qualities of the Qur’an earlier, and found it to be quite defective in those areas. Yet, even more troubling are the grammatical mistakes which exist within its text. Can we expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow such deficiencies to creep into his supposedly ‘perfect’ and eternal revelation? Consider the following:

1. In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).

2. In sura 7:160, the phrase “We divided them into twelve tribes,” is written in the feminine plural: Uthnati Ashrat Asbaataan. Due to the fact that it refers to a number of people, it should be written in the masculine plural form: Uthaiy Ashara Sibtaan, as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.

3. In sura 4:162, the phrase “And (especially) those who establish regular prayer…” is written as al Muqiyhina al salaat, which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural: al Muqiyhuna al salaat (?). It is important to note that the two following phrases, “(those who) practice regular charity, and (those who) believe in Allah…” are both correctly written in the masculine human plural form.

4. In sura 5:69, the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, should be written al Sabieen.

5. In sura 63:10, the phrase “I shall be” is written akun (which is in the 3rd person?). Yet since this word refers to the future (& is in the 1st person) it should be written akunu.

6. In sura 3:59, the words Kun feekunu should be written, Kun fakaana.

There are other grammatical errors which exist in the Qur’an as well, such as: suras 2:192; 13:28; 20:66 and the duals which replace the plurals in sura 55.

If we are still in doubt as to whether the Qur’an is subject to error, it might be helpful end this section by quoting a Muslim scholar, who, himself, comments on this very problem concerning grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an:

“The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects… To sum up, more than one hundred Qur’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.” (Dashti, 23 Years, pgs.48-50)

---

J: The Sources of the Qur’an

In the earlier sections of this paper we discussed the problems which we observed concerning the claims which Muslims make towards their Qur’an. We noted the haphazard means by which the Qur’an was collected, and were appalled by the many abrogations and errors which exist in this supposedly “perfect” word of Allah. We came to the conclusion that the book could be nothing more than a man-made piece of literature, which could not stand alongside the great literary compositions that we have in our possession today. Yet, we found it troubling that there were so many inadequacies with this most ‘holy book’ for the Muslims.

As we approached the study on the collation of the Qur’an, we were shocked by the glaring deficiencies which were evidenced in its collection, forcing us to conclude that much of its content must have been added to much later.

If this be so, we are now left with the question as to where the author or authors went for their material? Where were the sources for many of the stories and ideas which we find in the Qur’an?

When we read the Qur’an we are struck by the large number of Biblical stories within its pages. Yet, these stories have little parallel with that which we read in our Bible. The Qur’anic accounts include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to that which we have heard our parents read to us at devotional times. So, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Upon reading and observing these dubious teachings in the Qur’an we are forced to ask whether they contain stories which have parallels in pre-Islamic writings which were of questionable authenticity? If so, then we should be able to find these “apocryphal” accounts and compare them with that which we read in the Qur’an.

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish apocryphal literature (much of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century C.E. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an.

The Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century C.E., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions had been created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Many Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but merely use them as windows with which to understand the times in which they were written.

So how did these non-authoritative Talmudic writings come to be a part of the Qur’an? In the Arabian Peninsula (known as the Hijaz), during the seventh century many Jewish communities could be found. They were part of the diaspora who had fled Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. A large number of these Jews were guided by these Talmudic writings which had been passed down orally from father to son for generations. Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those amongst the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book.

When Muhammad came onto the scene, in the seventh century, some scholars believe he merely added to this body of literature the Qur’an. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by Muhammad, or perhaps later redactors, and incorporated into the religion of Islam.

Those who are critical of these sources, yet who adhere to Muslim Tradition, and consider Muhammad as the ‘originator’of the Qur’an, contend that many of these stories came to Muhammad via the Jewish friends which he had in Medina. We do know from Muslim tradition that Muhammad’s uncle, Waraqa, translated portions of the Gospels into Arabic, and that Buhaira, a Nestorian monk, was his secret teacher (Tisdall, pg.15).

Muslim Tradition also maintains that Muhammad’s seventh wife, Raihana, and his ninth wife, Safiyya, were Jewesses. Furthermore, his first wife, Khadija, had a Christian background. His eighth wife, Maryam, also belonged to a Christian sect. It is likely that these wives shared with him much of their Old and New Testament literature, their dramas, and their prophetic stories.

Whether these wives understood the distinction between authentic Biblical literature and that which was apocryphal is not known. They would not have been literary scholars, but would have simply related the stories they had heard from their local communities, much of which was Talmudic in origin, as we shall soon see.

Another scenario is that many of the corresponding stories which we find in the Qur’an are from a later date (towards the end of the eighth century, or 100-150 years after the death of Muhammad), and have little to do with Muhammad. They were possibly written by later Persian or Syrian redactors, who simply borrowed stories from their own oral traditions (Persian Zoroastrians, or Byzantine Christians) as well as stories from the apocryphal Jewish literature which would have been around at that time. They then simply telescoped back the stories onto the figure of Muhammad in the seventh century. Whatever is the case, the Qur’anic accounts do have interesting parallels with the Jewish apocryphal literature from the second century C.E.

Let’s then look at a few of these accounts, and compare them with the parallels which we find in other co-existing, or pre-dating literature of that period.

J1: Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

J1i: Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

In suras 2:34 and 17:61 we find Satan (Iblis, who could be a fallen angel, or a jinn, according to sura 18:50) refusing to bow down to Adam. This story can be traced back to the second century Talmud.

J1ii: Cain and Abel

A better example is the story of Cain and Abel in sura 5:27-32: The story begins much as it does in our own Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel (though they are not named in the Qur’anic account). Yet in aya 31, after Cain slays Abel, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical account (see sura 5:30-32 written out below, on the left). Where could this Qur’anic account have come from? Is this an historical record which is unknown to the Biblical writers?

Indeed it was, as the source for this account was drafted after the New Testament was written. In fact there are 3 sources from which this account is taken: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and a book called The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All these 3 documents are Jewish writings from the Talmud, which were oral traditions from between 150-200 C.E. These stories comment on the Laws of the Bible, yet are known to contain nothing more than Hebrew myths and fables. As we read this particular story from these 3 sources, we find a striking parallel to the Qur’anic account:

Qur’an- sura 5:31:

“Then Allah sent a raven, who cratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.”

Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah:

“Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, buried it at once.”

Apart from the contrast between who buried who, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later author obtained their story. Thus we find that a Jewish fable, a myth, is repeated as historical fact in the Qur’an.

Yet that is not all, for when we continue in our reading of sura 5, in the following aya 32 , we find a further proof of plagiarism from apocryphal Jewish literature; this time the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

Qur’an- sura 5:32:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land-it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…”

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5:

“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ‘the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out’ [this latter is a quote from the Bible, Genesis 4:10], and he says, ‘it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.’ Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race.”

There is no connection between the previous verse (aya 31) and that which we have just read (sura 5:32 above). What does the death of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people? Nothing. Ironically, this aya 32, in fact, supports the basis of the Old Testament hope for the finished work of Jesus, who was to take away the sins of the world (see John 1:29). Yet, it doesn’t flow from the verse which preceded it. So why is it here?

If we were to turn to the Jewish Talmud again, this time to the Mishnah Sanhendrin, chapter 4, verse 5 (above, on the right), we will find where the author obtained his material, and why he included it here.

In this account we read a Rabbi’s comments, where he interprets the word ‘blood’ to mean, “his own blood and the blood of his seed.” Remember, this is nothing but the comment of a Rabbi. It is his own interpretation, and one which is highly speculative at that.

Therefore, it is rather interesting that he then goes on to comment on the plural word for ‘blood.’ Yet this Rabbi’s comments are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an, in aya 32 of sura 5! How is it that a Rabbi’s comments on the Biblical text, the muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and attributed to God? Did Allah learn something from the Rabbi, or was it Muhammad or a later author who learned this admonition from this Rabbi’s writings?

The only conclusion is that the later is the case, because there is no connection between the narrative concerning the killing of Cain in the Qur’an (aya 31), and the subsequent verse about the whole race (aya 32).

It is only when we read the Mishnah Sanhedrin that we find the connection between these two stories: a Rabbi’s exposition of a biblical verse and a core word. The reason why this connection is lacking in the Qur’an is now quite easy to understand. The author of sura 5 simply did not know the context in which the Rabbi was talking, and therefore was not aware that these were merely comments on the Biblical text and not from the Bible itself. He simply added them to the Qur’an, repeating what he had heard without understanding the implication.

It is rather ironic that in sura 25:4-5 this very charge of haphazard plagiarism is leveled at Muhammad by the unbelievers in Medina:

“But the unbelievers say: ‘Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.’ In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: ‘Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”

This charge rings closer to the truth than many Muslims are willing to admit. It seems that those who did not believe in Muhammad or in the later redactions, recognized the sources for these stories, since they had undoubtably heard the same myths and fables from the Jews who were not only living in that area at that time, but came from the surrounding countries to the fairs at Mecca and other trading towns in the Hijaz.

It seems quite obvious that the Qur’an cannot be accepted as the word of God, if there exists parallels in its narratives which exist from myths and commentaries of other religions, such as we find here.

J1iii: Abraham

In sura 21:51-71, we find the story of Abraham (due to its length, it is not written here- you can read it for yourself). In the Qur’anic account Abraham confronts his people and his father because of the many idols which they worship. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the larger ones intact. When the people see this they call Abraham and ask if he is responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idols which did the destruction. He challenges them to ask the larger idols to find out, to which they reply, “Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!” (aya 65). He gives a taunting retort, and they then throw him into a fire. But in aya 69 Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.

There are no parallels to this story in our Bible. There is a parallel, however, in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In this account Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenged him on this, and with an added bit of humour, which is missing in the Qur’anic account, Abraham responds by saying that he had given the biggest idol an ox for all the idols to eat, but because the smaller idols went ahead and ate, they thus did not show respect. The bigger idol consequently smashed the smaller idols. The enraged father did not believe Abraham’s account, and so took him to a man named Nimrod, who simply threw him into a fire. But God made it cool for him and he walked out unscathed.

The similarity between these two stories is quite unmistakable. A second century Jewish fable, a folklore, and myth is repeated in the “holy Qur’an.” It is quite evident that Muhammad or another author heard this story from the Jews, but because he could not read their books, though he had heard snatches of the Biblical narratives, from visiting Jews, or even his wives, he simply assumed they came from the same source, and unwittingly wrote Jewish folklore into his Qur’an.

Some Muslims claim that this myth, and not the Biblical account, is in reality the true Word of God. They maintain that the Jews simply expunged it so as not to correspond with the later Qur’anic account. Without attempting to explain how the Jews would have known to expunge this very story, since the Qur’an was not to appear until centuries later, we nonetheless must ask where this folklore comes from?

The Bible itself gives us the answer.

In Genesis 15:7, the Lord tells Abraham that it was He who brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ur is a place, also mentioned in Genesis 11:31. We have evidence that a Jewish scribe named Jonathan Ben Uziel mistook the Hebrew word “Ur” for the Hebrew word which means “fire.” Thus in his commentary of this verse he writes, “I am the Lord who brought you out of the fire of the Chaldeans.”

Consequently, because of this misunderstanding, and because of a misreading of the Biblical verse a fable became popular around this era, which stated that God had brought Abraham out of the fire.

With this information in hand, we can, therefore, discern where the Jewish fable originated: from a misunderstanding of one word in a Biblical verse by one errant scribe. Yet, somehow this errant understanding found its way into God’s “holy” word in the Qur’an.

It is obvious from these examples that the author of the Qur’an simply repeated what he had heard, and not being able to distinguish between that which he heard and that which was Biblical truth, he simply compiled them side-by-side in the Qur’an.

J1iv: Mt Sanai

The story found in sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law is not recognizable from the Biblical account. And well it should not be, for it hails from another second century apocryphal Jewish book, The Abodah Sarah.

J1v: Solomon and Sheba

In sura 27:17-44 we read the story of Solomon, the Hoopoo bird and the Queen of Sheba. After reading the Qur’anic account of Solomon in sura 27, it would be helpful to compare it with the account taken from a Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written in the second Century C.E., nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an:

Qur’an- sura 27:17-44:

(aya 17) “And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts-of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks.

(aya 20) “And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?

(aya 21) “I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence).

(aya 22) “But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

(aya 23) “I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne…

(aya 27) “(Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!

(aya 28) “Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return.

(aya 29) “(The queen) said: “Ye chiefs! Here is- delivered to me-a letter worthy of respect.

(aya 30) “It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, most Gracious, Most Merciful: Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).’

(aya 32) “She said: ‘Ye chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’

(aya 33) “They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command.’

(aya 35) “She said…’But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’

(aya 42) “So when she arrived…

(aya 44) “… she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.’”

II Targum of Esther:

“Solomon…gave orders…I will send King and armies against thee…(of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.

Just then the Red-cock (a bird), enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it.

But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom (of Sheba) which is not subject to thee, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’

By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing and away it flew and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing (Sheba) opened it and read it.

‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please thee to come and ask after my welfare, I will set thee high above all. But if it please thee not, I will send kings and armies against thee.’

The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him.

When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger…to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass.

When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…”

It is rather obvious, once you have read the two accounts above, where the author of the story of Solomon and Sheba in the Qur’an obtained his data. The two stories are uncannily similar. The jinns, the birds, and in particular the messenger bird, which he couldn’t at first find, and then used as a liaison between himself and the Queen of Sheba, along with the letter and the glass floor, are unique to these two accounts. One will not find these parallels in the Biblical passages at all.

Qur’an- sura 3:35-37:

(aya 35) “Behold! a woman of Imran said: ‘O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: so accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.’

(aya 36) “When she was delivered, she said: “O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!” And Allah knew best what she brought forth- “And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.”

(aya 37) “Right graciously did her Lord accept her; He made her grow in purity and beauty: to the care of Zakariya was she assigned.”

The Proto-Evangelion’s James the Lesser:

“And Anna (wife of Joachim) answered, ‘As the Lord my God liveth, whatever I bring forth, whether it be male or female, I will devote it to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in holy things, during its whole life’…and called her name Mary…And the high-priest received her; and blessed her, and said, ‘Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations, and to the very end of time by thee will the Lord shew his redemption to the children of Israel.”

After reading the passage from the Qur’an (on the left), notice the similarities between the Qur’anic story and that found in a spurious gospel account from The Proto-evangelion’s James the Lesser, which is a second century C.E. apocryphal Christian fable (on the right).

Both accounts speak of the child being either male or female. They also mention that the child is Mary, and that she is protected by either a high- priest, or Zachariah, who is inferred as the keeper of the sanctuary, where Mary is kept (though the Lukan account speaks of him as the father of John the Baptist).

J1vii: Jesus’ Birth

There are a number of accounts in the Qur’an which speak of the early childhood of Jesus. These accounts do not correspond at all with the Biblical story. But they do have parallels with other apocryphal Jewish documents:

1. The Palm Tree In sura 19:22-26 we read the story of Mary, the baby Jesus, the Palm Tree, and the rivulet which flows below it. This story is not found in the Biblical account, but first appeared in an apocryphal fable of the second century C.E. (see lower passage; from The Lost Books of the Bible, New York, Bell Publishing Co., 1979, pg.38). Notice the similarities between the two accounts.Qur’an- sura 19:22-26:

   “So she conceived him [Jesus], and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: She cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight’! But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm tree): ‘Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee: And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm tree; it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye.

   The Lost Books of the Bible:

   Now on the third day after Mary was wearied in the desert by the heat, she asked Joseph to rest for a little under the shade of a Palm Tree. Then Mary looking up and seeing its branches laden with fruit (dates) said, ‘I desire if it were possible to have some fruit.’ Just then the child Jesus looked up (from below) with a cheerful smile, and said to the Palm Tree, ‘Send down some fruit.’ Immediately the tree bent itself (toward her) and so they ate. Then Jesus said, ‘O Palm Tree, arise; be one of my Father’s trees in Paradise, but with thy roots open the fountain (rivulet) beneath thee and bring water flowing from that fount.’

2. The Baby Jesus Talking Later on in the same sura (19) in verses 29-33 we find that the baby Jesus can talk. Nowhere in any of the gospels do we find the baby Jesus talking. There is the account of Jesus disputing with the elders in the temple, but this story comes later, when Jesus has grown into a young boy. So where did this story come from? Once again, we need only turn to apocryphal writings from the 2nd century; this time to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt, named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ to find the same story:Qur’an- sura 19:29-33:

   “But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’

   “He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

   “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live;

   “He hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

   “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

   The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “… Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: ‘Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel…’

3. Creating birds from clay Jesus, according to sura 3:49 breathed life into birds of clay. The source for this Qur’anic fiction is found in the earlier Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, another apocryphal fable from the 2nd century:Qur’an- sura 3:49:

   “And (appoint him [Jesus]) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave…”

   Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “Then he took from the bank of the stream some soft clay, and formed out of it twelve sparrows…Then Jesus clapping together the palms of his hands called to the sparrows, and said to them: ‘Go, fly away.'”

J1viii: Heaven and Hell

There are Qur’anic accounts which deal with heaven and hell, which have no parallels with our Biblical accounts. It is not difficult, however, to find out where these stories originated. Take for instance the following:

1. Seven Heavens and Seven Hells In suras 15:43-44 and 17:44 we find reference to the seven hells and the seven heavens. Without asking where these seven heavens and hells are located, it will be helpful to note that the same number of hells and heavens can be found in the tradition called Jagigah and Zuhal.

2. Mi’raj In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the Sacred mosque to the farthest mosque. From later traditions we know this aya is referring to Muhammad ascending up to the 7th Heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “horse” called Buraq.More detail is furnished us in the Jewish Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic.Another account is that of The Secrets of Enoch, which predates Muhammad by four centuries. In chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1 we read:

   “On the first day of the month I was in my house and was resting on my couch and slept and when I was asleep great distress came up into my heart and there appeared two men. They were standing at my couch and called me by name and I arose from my sleep. Have courage, Enoch, do not fear; The Eternal God sent us to thee. Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven. The angels took him on their wings and bore him up to the first heaven.”

3. Hell The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century (Glubb, pg.36)

4. Balance The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9, utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

5. Paradise The description of Paradise in suras 55:56-58 and 56:22-24,35-37, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris who have eyes like pearls, has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia, where the name for the maidens is not houris, but Paaris.

J2: Stories Which do not Correspond With the Biblical Account

There are other stories which do not necessarily follow any Biblical accounts, but which have astonishing similarities with further apocryphal Jewish literature from the second century.

J2i: Harut and Marut

In sura 2:102 the two angels Harut and Marut are mentioned. Who exactly are these two characters? While Yusuf Ali believes these were angels who lived in Babylon, historical records show us that they were idols which were worshipped in Armenia. Their existence was inspired by Marut, the Hindu god of the wind. We find this story related in the Talmud (Midrash Yalzut, chapter 44).

J2ii: The Cave of the Seven Sleepers

The story which was mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, concerning the seven sleepers and a dog who slept for 309 years in a cave, is found in sura 18:9-25. It has a striking resemblance to a book called The Story of Martyrs, by Gregory of Tours. In this account it is a legendary tale of Christians who were under persecution, and who fell asleep in a cave for 200 years.

J2iii: The Sirat

Though not mentioned in the Qur’an by name, the bridge over which all must pass to their final destiny is referred to in sura 19:71. As in the case of the Mi’raj, we must go to the Hadiths to find out what the Sirat really is. And when we do, we wonder from whence such an idea originated. We don’t need to look far, for a similar bridge leading over the deep gulf of hell to Paradise is called Chinavad (the connecting link) in the Zoroastrian book Dinkart.

It is important to remember that none of the above extra-Biblical quotations are recognized by Biblical scholars, historians, or theologians as authentic events in the life of Christ, or in the scope of the Jewish faith. Consequently they are not included in the Bible. In fact their late dates (most are from the second century C.E., or A.D.) should make it obvious to any casual observer that they have little authenticity whatsoever.

---

K: Conclusion

We have now come to the end of our discussion on the authority of the Qur’an. We began our study by noting that a possible reason for so much misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians could be the way we viewed our respective scriptures; and the real differences which exist concerning our views on revelation and inspiration. It seems obvious to me that until we understand these differences in perception we will be condemned to continue talking at and past each other, without any hope of coming together in true dialogue.

We noted in our study the tendency by Muslims to elevate their Qur’an to a higher degree then what we do with our own Bible. Examples of this elevation can be found in their demand that no-one write in its margins, or let it touch the floor. By doing so they could almost be blamed for deifying it, a practice which sparks of idolatry, the very sin (Shirk) which the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to do (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

From there we dealt with the claim by Muslims that Qur’anic authority is found in the miracle of its composition; that it has superior and unique literary qualities which exceed any known written work. It seems to be the consensus of a number of scholars, however, that with no logical connection from one sura to the next, the Qur’an not only is difficult to read, its content is so confusing that it takes an enormous amount of patience to understand it. With criticisms like these it is difficult to understand why Muslims continue to elevate its supposed literary qualities.

We noted that Muslims claim authority for the Qur’an as a universal document. Yet, we found the Qur’an to be a uniquely 7th-9th century Arab piece of literature, which simply reflected the mentality and culture of that time. This was made clear with two examples: the case for the inferiority of women and the profoundly violent nature of the Qur’an and its prophet, Muhammad. From there we continued on to the collection of the original documents, and asked the question of whether any document which comes from the hands of God could be tampered with as we have witnessed here in these examples. The incredible respect and awe which is evidenced by Muslims today for their Qur’an belies the seemingly cavalier attitude of the earlier Caliphs towards the original codices, evidenced by their burning of all extent manuscripts, even those which Muhammad himself had deemed to be authoritative.

We were astonished at how an “eternal divine document of God” could contain within its text not only abrogations of itself, but errors which give doubt to its entire veracity. If God’s word is to retain its integrity, it must remain above suspicion. Even the Qur’an demands such a standard. In sura 4:82 we read, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies” (sura 4:82). The testimony of the material we have covered here convicts the Qur’an of failing in the very claims it purports to uphold, and sustain. This bodes ill for its claim to inspiration, while negating any hope of any recognized authority.

In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur’an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur’an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur’an’s authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur’an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a “holy book” which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur’an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur’an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur’an could hope to be the true Word of God.

The same test of verification is required of the Qur’an as that of all scriptures, including those which have preceded it (the Old and New Testament). For decades now scholars have attempted to find fault with our scriptures, applying to them the same critical investigation we have applied here and more, and for the most part we have welcomed it. Yet, through all the critical and sometimes polemical analysis which has been fomented against our scriptures, they have resolutely stood the test. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bible continues to be the number one best-seller in the history of literature. Though we do not accord our scriptures the same sense of elevated worship which the Muslims demon- strate for their Qur’an, we do stand behind the veracity of our scriptures claim to divine inspiration. We do so because it has proven time and again to remain consistent to the claims it makes of itself and of all true revelations which come from the divine hand of God.

---

L: References Cited

Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, The Holy Qur’an (Revised Edition), Brentwood, Amana Corporation, 1989

Campbell, Dr. William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, Middle East Resources

Copleston, F.S, Christ or Mohammed? The Bible or the Koran?, Harpenden, Nuprint, 1989

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, The Codification of the Qur’an Text, South Africa, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Hoodbhoy, Pervez, Islam and Science, London, Zed Books ltd., 1989

Morey Robert, Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1992

Nehls, Gerhard, Christians Ask Muslims, Bellville, SIM International Life Challenge, 1987

Pfander, C. G., The Mizanu’l Haqq, (Balance of Truth), London, The Religious Tract Soc., 1910

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

“Is the Qur’an the Word of God?” — 99 Truth Papers

Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith
3rd June 1996

---

1. Introduction

2. The Problems with the Islamic Traditions

   1. The Sources

   2. Late Dates

      1. Writing

      2. Age

      3. Scripts

   3. Credibility

   4. Contradictions

   5. Similarities

   6. Proliferation

   7. Isnad

   8. Storytelling

3. An Internal Critique of the Qur’an

   1. The Qur’an’s Makeup

      1. Inimitability

      2. Structural weaknesses

      3. Literary defects

      4. Universality

      5. Interpolation

   2. Talmudic Sources in the Qur’an

      1. The story of Cain and Abel

      2. The story of Abraham

      3. The Story of Solomon and Sheba

   3. Scientific Peculiarities in the Qur’an

   4. A Possible Solution (“Salvation History”)

4. An External Critique of the Qur’an

   1. Hijra

   2. Qibla

   3. The Jews

   4. Mecca

   5. Dome of the Rock

   6. Muhammad

   7. ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’

   8. Qur’an

5. Can We Use These Non-Muslim Sources?

6. Conclusion

7. References Cited

---

A: Introduction

In August of 1995 I was invited to debate the motion, “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?” with Dr. Jamal Badawi. The debate took place at Trinity College, Cambridge, and after our papers had been presented the debate was opened to the floor for an hour of questions from both the Muslims and Christians present. Below is the content of the paper which I gave at the debate, as well as further material which I used in the question and answer period, and further data which has come out since the time of the debate. Because of the interest shown in the topic, we have put this paper along with ten other apologetical papers, and certain Muslim rebuttals to the material, as well as a number of the popular 99 Truth Tracts on a web-site, on the internet (this site). Our hope is that with the material on this web-site the debate can continue around the world, and help to enliven the dialogue already begun by the Cambridge debate.

(Note: I have tried to footnote those statements which could prove to be contentious, or which would stimulate the readers to look for further data. I have used the Harvard model, which commences with the author’s name, followed by the date of publication, and page number). Let us then begin our study.

---

Islam claims that the Qur’an is not only God’s Word, but that it is the final revelation given to humanity. It comes from the “Mother of all books” according to sura 43:2-4. Muslims maintain that the Qur’an is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation which is found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. They point to sura 85:21-22 which says, “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe that the Qur’an is an identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters are concerned.

According to Muslim tradition, these revelations’ began to be sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens in the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (lailat al Qadr) 1. From there they were revealed to Muhammad in installments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and with such, its integrity.

Most westerners have accepted these claims from Muslims at face value. They have never had the ability to argue their veracity, because the claims could neither be proved nor disproved, as their authority was derived solely from the Qur’an itself (dispelling any attempt to wrest from the pages of the Bible fulfilled prophecies of Deuteronomy 18, John 14, 16; and perhaps others).

There has also been a reticence to question the Qur’an and the prophet due to the adverse response directed upon those who were brave enough to attempt it in the past. The fact is that for too long westerners have been content to assume that the Muslims had evidence and data to substantiate their claims.

It is only now, as secular scholars of Islam (known as “Orientalists”) re-examine the Islamic sources, that evidence is being uncovered which puts into question much of what we have been led to believe concerning Muhammad and his revelation,’ the Qur’an.

The findings of these scholars indicate that the Qur’an was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions (or editions) formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years 2. In other words, the Qur’an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but was more than likely a product of the eighth and ninth centuries 3. It was at this time, the Orientalists say, particularly in the ninth century, that Islam took on its classical identity and became that which is recognizable today. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam, they contend, was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 200-300 years 4.

Source material for this period, however, is sparse. Essentially the only sources which had been available to the historians were Muslim sources. What is more, outside the Qur’an,’ the sources are all late. Prior to 750 A.D. we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can give us a window into this formative period of Islam 5. Nothing exists with which to corroborate Muslim Tradition’ material (that is, Islamic history based on their traditions). Later documents simply draw upon earlier documents, which no longer exist today (if indeed they existed at all) 6. This classical period (around 800 A.D.) describes the earlier period, but from its own viewpoint, much like an adult, writing about their childhood will tend to remember those areas which were pleasant. Thus, the account is coloured, and biased, and as such cannot be accepted as authentic by historical scholars 7.

Consequently, the demarcation line between what the historian will accept and that which Muslim Traditions maintain is growing further apart for the following reasons: Islam, according to orthodox Muslim scholars, gives complete credence to divine intervention for its revelation. Muslim Tradition asserts that Allah sent down his revelation to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel (Jibril) over a period of twenty-two years (610-632 A.D.), in which time many of the laws and traditions which delineate that which we define as Islam were formulated and worked out.

Yet it is this scenario which secular historians are balking at today, as it presupposes that in the early seventh century, Islam, a religion of immense sophistication, of intricate laws and traditions was formulated in a backward’ nomadic culture and became fully functional in only twenty two years.

The Hijaz (central Arabia) before that time was hardly known in the civilized world. Even the later traditions refer to this period as Jahiliyya (or period of ignorance, implying its backwardness). Arabia before Muhammad did not have an urbanized culture, nor could it boast a sophisticated infrastructure needed to create, let alone maintain the scenario painted by the later traditions for the early period of Islam 8. So, how did it come together so neatly and so quickly? There is no historical precedence for such a scenario. One would expect such a degree of sophistication over a period of one or two centuries, provided there were other sources, such as neighbouring cultures from which traditions and laws could be borrowed, but certainly not within an unsophisticated desert environment, and certainly not within a period of a mere 22 years.

Secular historians cannot simply accept the position posited by the later traditions that this all came about by divine revelation, as they maintain that all of history must be substantiated with historical evidence. They are forced to stand back and ask how we know what we know, where the information originates, and whether it stands up to an “unbiased” or neutral historical analysis.

Historians had, therefore, been pushed into a dilemma. Due to their secular presuppositions they could not base their research on the existence of God, yet they could not throw out the Muslim Traditions (which naturally presuppose His existence), because they were the best and at times only documents available.

That is, until recently.

The new crop of historical experts on Islam (such as Dr. John Wansbrough, Michael Cook [both from SOAS], Patricia Crone formerly from Oxford, now lecturing at Cambridge, Yehuda Nevo from the University of Jerusalem, Andrew Rippin from Canada, and others), while admitting that there is a mystery concerning the question of divine intervention, are now looking more closely at other sources concerning the Qur’an to ascertain clues to its origins. It is these sources which are now beginning to reveal evidence for alternative explanations to the beginnings of a religion which today encompasses 1/5th of the world’s population, and is growing faster then any other major religion.

It is their work, therefore, that I would like to use, to understand better a possible origin for the Qur’an. It is their material, and others, which, I feel, Muslim apologists will need to face seriously in the years ahead, as much of this new data puts into serious doubt many of the claims forwarded by traditional Muslim scholars concerning their holy book, the Qur’an, and their prophet, Muhammad. Let us, then begin our analysis by taking a look at the sources for much of what we know concerning Islam, its prophet and its book.

---

B: The Problems with the Islamic Traditions

In order to make a critique of the Qur’an it is important not to listen to what the exegetes are saying today, but to go back to the beginning, to the earliest sources of the Qur’an which we have at our disposal, to pick up clues as to its authenticity. One would assume that this should be quite easy to do, as it is a relatively new piece of literature, having appeared on the scene, according to Muslims, a mere “1,400 years ago.”

B1: The Sources

The question of sources has always been a contentious area for the secular scholar of Islam, as any study of the Qur’an must begin with the problem of primary versus secondary sources. Primary sources are those materials which are the closest, or have direct access to the event. Secondary sources concern any material which tends to be more recent and, consequently, is dependent on the primary sources. In Islam, the primary sources which we possess are 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those events 9. For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on other material, much of which no longer exists. The first and largest of these sources is that of “Muslim or Islamic Traditions.” Because of the importance of the Muslim Traditions it is crucial that we deal with them first.

Muslim Traditions are comprised of writings which were compiled by Muslims in the late eighth to early tenth centuries concerning what the prophet Muhammad said and did back in the seventh century, and commentaries on the Qur’an. They are by far the most extensive body of material which we have today on the early period of Islam. They are also written in greater detail then anything else in our possession, in that they include dates as well as explanations for what happened. They are a complement to the Qur’an.

The Qur’an by itself is difficult to follow, as it leaves the reader confused while it jumps from story to story, with little background narration or explanation. It is at this point that the traditions are important as they fill in details which otherwise would be lost. In some instances the traditions prevail over the Qur’an; as for example, when the Qur’an refers to three daily prayers 10, while the five daily prayers stipulated by the later traditions have been adopted by Muslims ever since 11.

A number of genres exist within these traditions. Their authors were not writers themselves, but were compilers and editors who drew together information “passed to them,” and produced it. There are many compilers, but the four who are considered by many Muslims to be the most authoritative in each genre all lived and assembled their material between 750-923 A.D. (or 120-290 years after the death of Muhammad). It may be helpful to list their works, along with their dates:

1. The Sira are accounts concerning the traditional life of the prophet (including his battles). The most comprehensive Sira was written by Ibn Ishaq (died 765 A.D.), though none of his manuscripts exist today. Consequently, we are dependent on the Sira of Ibn Hisham (died 833 A.D.), which was supposedly taken from that of Ibn Ishaq, though, by his own admission (according to the research of Patricia Crone) he omitted those areas which might have caused offense (such as anything which he felt was repugnant, poems not attested elsewhere, as well as matters which he could not accept as trustworthy) 12.

2. The Hadith are thousands of short reports or narratives (akhbar) on the sayings and deeds of the prophet which were collected by Muslims in the ninth and tenth centuries. Of the six most famous collections of Hadith, those of al-Bukhari (died 870 A.D.) are considered by many Muslims as the most authoritative.

3. The Ta’rikh are histories or chronologies of the prophet’s life, the most famous written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.) early in the tenth century.

4. The Tafsir, are commentaries and exegesis on the Qur’an, its grammar and its context; the best known also written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.).

B2: Late Dates

Obviously, the first question which we must ask is why these traditions were written so late, 150-300 years after the fact? We simply do not have any “account from the Islamic’ community during the [initial] 150 years or so, between the first Arab conquests [of the early seventh century] and the appearance, with the sira-maghazi narratives, of the earliest Islamic literature” [towards the late eighth century] 13. We should expect to find, in those intervening 150 years, at least remnants of evidence for the development of the old Arab religion towards Islam (i.e. Muslim traditions); yet we find nothing 14.

There are Muslims who disagree, maintaining that there is evidence of earlier traditions, principly the Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas (born in 712 A.D. and died in 795 A.D.). Norman Calder in his book Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence disagrees with such an early date and questions whether works can be attributed to the authors listed. He argues that most of the texts we have from these supposedly early authors are “school texts,” transmitted and developed over several generations, and achieving the form in which we know them considerably later than the putative “authors” to whom they are usually ascribed. Following the current assumption that “Shafi’i’s law” (which demanded that all hadith be traced to Muhammad) did not come into effect until after 820 A.D., he concluded that because the Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammad’s prophetic authority whereas the Muwatta does, the Muwatta must be the later document. Consequently, Calder positions the Muwatta not prior to 795 A.D., but sometime after the Mudawwana which was written in 854 A.D. In fact Calder places the Muwatta not even in eighth century Arabia but in eleventh century Cordoba, Spain 15. If he is correct then we are indeed left with little evidence of any traditions from the early period of Islam.

Humphreys crystallizes this problem when he points out that, “Muslims, we would suppose, must surely have taken great care to record their spectacular achievements, while the highly literate and urbanized societies which they had subjugated could hardly avoid coming to grips with what had happened to them.” 16 Yet, according to Humphreys all we find from this early period are sources which are, “either fragmentary or represent very specific or even eccentric perspectives,” completely annulling any possibility of reconstructing Islam’s first century adequately 17.

The question, therefore, must be asked as to where the eighth and ninth century compilers actually obtained their material from?

The answer is that we just don’t know. “Our evidence for documentation prior to 750 A.D. consists almost entirely of rather dubious citations in later compilations.” 18 Consequently, we have no reliable proof that the traditions speak truly of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Qur’an 19. We are asked to believe that these documents, written hundreds of years later are accurate, though we are not presented with any evidence for their veracity, outside of Isnads, which are nothing more than lists purporting to give the names of those from whom these oral traditions were passed down. Yet even the Isnads lack any supportive documentation with which to corroborate their authenticity 20! However, more of that later in the paper.

B2a: Writing

Muslims maintain that the late dates of the primary sources can be attributed to the fact that writing was simply not used in such an isolated area at that time. This assumption is completely unfounded, as writing on paper began long before the seventh century. Writing paper was invented in the fourth century, and used extensively thoughout the civilized world thereafter. The Umayyad dynasty was headquartered in the former Byzantine area of Syria and not Arabia. Thus it was a sophisticated society which used secretaries in the Caliphal courts, proving that manuscript writing was well developed there.

Furthermore, we are told that Arabia (better known as the Hijaz) in the seventh century and earlier, was an area of trade, with caravans plying routes north-south, and possibly east-and west. While the evidence shows that the trade was primarily local (as we will discuss later), caravans were in use. How did the caravaneers keep their records? They certainly didn’t memorize the figures.

And finally, we must ask how we came by the Qur’an if there was no-one capable of putting-pen-to-paper before that time? Muslims claim the existence of a number of codices of the Qur’an shortly after the death of Muhammad, such as those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy b. Ka’b 21. What were these codices if they were not written documents? The Uthmanic text itself had to have been written, otherwise it would not be a text! Writing was available, but for some reason, no record was kept of those supposed earlier documents prior to 750 A.D.

B2b: Age

Other Muslim scholars maintain that the absence of early documentation can be blamed on old age. They believe that the material upon which the primary sources were written either disintegrated over time, leaving us with few examples today, or wore out from heavy handling and so were destroyed.

This argument is rather dubious. In the British Library we have ample examples of documents written by individuals in communities which were not too distant from Arabia, yet they predate these manuscripts by hundreds of years. On display are New Testament manuscripts such as the Codex Syniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, both of which were written in the fourth century, three to four hundred years before the period in question! Why have they not disintegrated with age?

Where this argument is especially weak, however, is when we apply it to the Qur’an itself. The “Uthmanic text” of the Qur’an (the final canon supposedly compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, under the direction of the third caliph Uthman) is considered by all Muslims to be the most important piece of literature ever written. As we noted earlier, according to Sura 43:2-4, it is the “mother of books.” Its importance lies in the fact that it is considered to be an exact replica of the “eternal tablets” which exist in heaven 22. Muslim tradition informs us that all other competing codices and manuscripts were destroyed after 646-650 A.D. Even “Hafsah’s copy,” from which the final recension was taken was burned. If this Uthmanic text was so important, why then was it not written on paper, or other material which would have lasted till today? And certainly, if the earliest manuscripts wore out with usage, why were they not replaced with others written on skin, like so many other older documents which are still in existence today?

We have absolutely no evidence for the original Qur’anic text 23. Nor do we have any of the alleged four copies which were made of this recension and sent to Mecca, Medina, Basra and Damascus (see Gilchrist’s arguments in his book Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989, pp. 140-154, as well as Ling’s & Safadi’s The Qur’an 1976, pp. 11-17). Even if these copies had somehow disintegrated with age, there would surely be some fragments of the documents which we could refer to. By the end of the seventh century Islam had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur’an (according to tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should be some Qur’anic documents or manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts still in existence 24, most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) 25, Islam can not provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century 26. If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the seventh century, at a time when paper had not yet been intoduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegtrated, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, when it was supposedly revealed? This indeed presents a problem for the argument that the earliest Qur’ans all simply disintegrated with age, or were destroyed because they were worn.

B2c: Scripts

In response, Muslims contend that they do have a number of these “Uthmanic recensions,” these original copies from the seventh century still in their possession. I have heard Muslims claim that there are original copies in Mecca, in Cairo and in almost every ancient Islamic settlement. I have often asked them to furnish me with the data which would substantiate their antiquity; a task which, to date, nobody has been able to do.

There are two documents, however, which do hold some credibility, and to which many Muslims refer. These are the Samarkand Manuscript, which is located in the Soviet State Library, at Tashkent, Uzbekistan (in the southern part of the former Soviet Union), and the Topkapi Manuscript, which can be found in the Topkapi Museum, in Istanbul, Turkey.

These two documents are indeed old, and there has been ample enough etymological and paleographical analysis done on them by scriptologists, as well as experts in Arabic calligraphy to warrant their discussion here.

Samarkand Manuscript – taken from Gilchrist’s Jam’ al-Qur’an 1989, pp. 148-150:

The Samarkand Manuscript is not at all a complete document. In fact, out of the 114 suras found in today’s Qur’ans, only parts of suras 2 to 43 are included. Of these suras much of the text is missing. The actual inscription of the text in the Samarkand codex presents a real problem, as it is very irregular. Some pages are neatly and uniformly copied out while others are quite untidy and imbalanced 27. On some pages the text is fairly expansive, while on other pages it is severely cramped and condensed. At times the Arabic letter KAF has been excluded from the text, while at others it not only is extended but is the dominant letter in the text. Because so many pages of the manuscript differ so extensively from one another, the assumption today is that we have a composite text, compiled from portions of different manuscripts 28.

Also within the text one can find artistic illuminations between the suras, usually made up of coloured bands of rows of squares, as well as 151 red, green, blue and orange medallions. These illuminations have compelled the scriptologists to give the codex a ninth century origin, as it is grossly unlikely that such embellishments would have accompanied a seventh century Uthmanic manuscript sent out to the various provinces 29.

Topkapi Manuscript:

The Topkapi Manuscript in Istanbul, Turkey is also written on parchment, and devoid of vocalization 30. Like the Samarkand MSS it is supplemented with ornamental medallions indicating a later age 31.

Muslims claim that this too must be one of the original copies, if not the original one compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit. Yet one only needs to compare it with the Samarkand codex to realize that they most certainly cannot both be Uthmanic originals. For instance, the Istanbul’s Topkapi codex has 18 lines to the page whereas the Samarkand codex in Tashkent has only half that many, between 8 and 12 lines to the page; the Istanbul codex is inscribed throughout in a very formal manner, the words and lines quite uniformly written out, while the text of the Samarkand codex is often haphazard and considerably distorted. One cannot believe that both these manuscripts were copied out by the same scribes.

Script Analysis:

Experts in manuscript analysis use three tests for ascertaining their age. To begin with, they test the age of the paper on which the manuscript is written, using such chemical processes as carbon-14 dating. This is adequate for recent documents such as the Qur’an, as precise dating of between +/-20 years is possible. There has been a reticence to use it, however, because the amount of material that has to be destroyed in the process (1 to 3 grams) would require the loss of too much of the manuscript. A more refined form of carbon-14 dating, known as AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectometry) is now used, requiring only 0.5 to 1.0 mg. of material for testing 32. Yet, to date neither of these manuscripts have been tested by this more advanced method.

Experts also study the ink of the manuscript and analyse its makeup, discerning where it originated, or if it had been erased and copied over. But the age for these documents would be difficult to pinpoint because of the lateness of the document. These problems are compounded by the inaccessibility of these manuscripts for detailed research, due to a fear by those who guard them.

Thus the specialists must go to the script itself, analyse whether the manuscript is recent or old. This study is better known as paleography. Styles of letter formation change over time. These changes tend to be uniform as manuscripts were usually written by professional scribes. Thus the penmanship tended to follow easy to delineate conventions, with only gradual modifications 33. By examining the handwriting in texts whose dates are already known and noting their development over time, a paleographer can compare them with other undated texts and thereby ascertain the time period to which they belong.

It is when we apply the paleographical test to both the Samarkand and Topkapi manuscripts that we arrive at some interesting conclusions concerning their dates. It is this evidence which is proving to be the most serious argument against the possibility that either of these two manuscripts could be those copied out, or ‘Uthman’, or that they were even in existence in the seventh century.

The Kufic Script:

What most Muslims do not realize is that these two manuscripts are written in the Kufic Script, a script which according to modern Qur’anic experts, such as Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until late into the eighth century (790s and later), and was not in use at all in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century 34.

The reasons for this are quite simple. Consider: The Kufic script, properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi, derives its name from the city of Kufa in Iraq 35. It would be rather odd for this to be the official script of an Arabic Qur’an as it is a script which takes its name from a city that had only been conquered by the Arabs a mere 10-14 years earlier.

It is important to note that the city of Kufa, which is in present day Iraq, was a city which would have been Sassanid or Persian before that time (637-8 A.D.). Thus, while Arabic would have been known there, it would not have been the predominant language, let alone the predominant script, until much later.

We know in fact, that the Kufic script reached its perfection during the late eighth century (up to one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death) and thereafter it became widely used throughout the Muslim world 36. This makes sense, since after 750 A.D. the Abbasids controlled Islam, and due to their Persian background were headquartered in the Kufa and Baghdad areas. They would thus have wanted their script to dominate. Having been themselves dominated by the Umayyads (who were based in Damascus) for around 100 years, it would now be quite understandable that an Arabic script which originated in their area of influence, such as the Kufic script, would evolve into that which we find in these two documents mentioned here.

The Landscape Format:

Another factor which points to the late dates for these two manuscripts are the format in which they are written. One will observe that due to the elongated style of the Kufic script, they both use sheets which are wider than they are tall. This is known as the ‘landscape format’, a format borrowed from Syriac and Iraqi Christian documents of the eighth and ninth centuries. The earlier Arabic manuscripts were all written in the ‘upright format’ (thanks to Dr. Hugh Goodacre of the Oriental and India Office Collections, who pointed this fact out to me for the South Bank debate).

Therefore, it stands to reason that both the Topkapi and Samarkand Manuscripts, because they are written in the Kufic script, and because they use the landscape format, could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the Uthmanic Recension was supposedly compiled; at the earliest the late 700s or early 800s 37.

Ma’il and Mashq Scripts:

So what script would have been used in the Hijaz (Arabia) at that time? We do know that there were two earlier Arabic scripts which most modern Muslims are not familiar with. These are the al-Ma’il Script, developed in the Hijaz, particularly in Mecca and Medina, and the Mashq Script, also developed in Medina 38. The al-Ma’il Script came into use in the seventh century and is easily identified, as it was written at a slight angle (see the example on page 16 of Gilchrist’s Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989). In fact the word al-Ma’il means “slanting.” This script survived for about two centuries before falling into disuse.

The Mashq Script also began in the seventh century, but continued to be used for many centuries. It is more horizontal in form and can be distinguished by its somewhat cursive and leisurely style 39.

If the Qur’an had been compiled at this time in the seventh century, then one would expect it to have been written in either the Ma’il or Mashq script.

Interestingly, we do have a Qur’an written in the Ma’il script, and considered to be the earliest Qur’an in our possession today. Yet it is not found in either Istanbul or Tashkent, but, ironically, resides in the British Library in London 40. It has been dated towards the end of the eighth century, by Martin Lings, the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Library, who is himself, a practising Muslim.

Therefore, with the help of script analysis, we are quite certain that there is no known manuscript of the Qur’an which we possess today which can be dated from the seventh century 41.

Furthermore, virtually all the earliest Qur’anic manuscript fragments which we do possess cannot be dated earlier than 100 years after the time of Muhammad. In her book Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel underlines this point when she states that apart from the recently discovered [Korans] in Sanaa, “the earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the eighth century.” 42

Interestingly, these Qur’ans from Sanaa still remain a mystery, as the Yemen government has not permitted the Germans who discovered them to publish their findings. Could this be a possible cover-up due to what these earliest’ Qur’ans might reveal? There have been suggestions that the script in these early eighth century Qur’ans does not correspond to that which we have today. We still wait to know the whole truth.

From the evidence we do have, however, it would seem improbable that portions of the Qur’an supposedly copied out at Uthman’s direction have survived. What we are left with is the intervening 150 years for which we cannot account. However, before continuing with the Qur’an, let us return to the Muslim traditions and continue our discussion on whether these earliest sources of the Qur’an can provide an adequate assessment of the Qur’an’s authority. The body of traditions which are most widely used are the Hadith.

B3: Credibility

There is much discussion not only amongst the secular historians, but within Islam as well, even today, as to the credibility of the hadith compilations.

As we noted earlier, the bulk of our historical texts on early Islam were compiled between 850-950 A.D. 43. All later material used these compilations as their standard, while earlier material simply cannot be corroborated with any degree of authenticity 44. It could be that the earlier traditions were no longer relevant, and so were left to disintegrate, or were destroyed. We don’t know. What we do know is that these compilers most likely took their material from collections compiled within the decades around 800 A.D., and not from any documents which were written in the seventh century, and certainly not from the person of Muhammad or his companions 45.

We also know that many of their compilations were paraphrases of earlier Akhbars (anecdotes and phrases) which they considered to be acceptable, though what their criterion was is still a mystery 46. It now seems obvious that the early ninth century “schools of law” authenticated their own agenda by asserting that their doctrines came initially from the companions of the prophet and then from the prophet himself 47.

Schacht maintains that the origin for this undertaking was the scholar al-Shafi’i (died in 820 A.D.). It was he who stipulated that all traditions of law must be traced back to Muhammad in order to retain their credibility. As a result the great mass of legal traditions perpetrated by the classical schools of law invoking the authority of the prophet originated during the time of Shafi’i and later, and consequently express later Iraqian doctrines, and not those from early Arabia 48. It is this agenda imposed by each school of law concerning the choice of the traditions in the ninth and tenth centuries which many now believe invalidates the authenticity for the hadith.

Wansbrough agrees with Humphreys and Schacht when he maintains that literary records, although presenting themselves as contemporary with the events they describe, actually belonged to a period well after such events, which suggests that they had been written according to later points of view in order to fit the purposes and agendas of that later time 49. Take the example of the Shi’ites. Their agenda is indeed quite transparent, as they maintain that of the 2,000 valid hadith the majority (1,750) were derived from Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet, to whom all Shi’ites look for inspiration. To a casual observer this looks rather suspect. If the premise for authenticity for the Shi’ites was purely political, then why should we not deduce the same premise was likewise at work with the other compilers of the traditions?

The question we must ask is whether or not there is an underlying “grain of historical truth” which is left for us to use? Schacht and Wansbrough are both sceptical on this point 50.

Patricia Crone takes the argument one step further by contending that credibility for the traditions has been lost due to the bias of each individual compiler. She states,

The works of the first compilers such as Abu Mikhnaf, Sayf b.’Umar, ‘Awana, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn al-Kalbi are accordingly mere piles of disparate traditions reflecting no one personality, school, time or place: as the Medinese Ibn Ishaq transmits traditions in favour of Iraq, so the Iraqi Sayf has traditions against it. And all the compilations are characterized by the inclusion of material in support of conflicting legal and doctrinal persuasions. (Crone 1980:10)

In other words, local schools of law simply formed different traditions, relying on local conventions and the opinions of local scholars 51. In time scholars became aware of this diversity and saw the need to unify Muslim law. The solution was found by appealing to Prophetic tradition, which would have authority over a scholar’s ra’y (opinion). Hence the traditions attributed to the Prophet began to multiply from around 820 A.D. onwards 52.

Take the example of the Sira, which gives us the best material on the prophet’s life. It seems to take some of its information from the Qur’an. Although Isnads are used to determine authenticity (which we now know to be suspect, as we shall see later), its authority is dependent on the authority of the Qur’an, whose credibility is now in doubt as well (also to be discussed in a later section). According to G. Levi Della Vida, in his article on the Sira, the formation of the Sira down to the period of its reduction to its “canonical” form seems to have taken place along the following lines:

The continually increasing veneration for the person of Muhammad provoked the growth around his figure of a legend of hagiographical (idolizing) character in which alongside of more-or-less corrupt historical memories there gathered episodes modelled on Jewish or Christian religious tradition (perhaps also Iranian, although to a much lesser degree). 53

He goes on to explain that his material became , organized and systematized in the schools of the Medina muhaddithun, through a ‘midrash,’ subtle and full of combinations, made up of passages from the Qur’an in which exegesis had delighted to discover allusions to very definite events in the life of the Prophet. It was in this way that the history of the Medina period was formed. 54

We are therefore left with documents which hold little credibility 55. Even earlier material helps us little. The Maghazi, which are stories of the prophet’s battles and campaigns, are the earliest Muslim documents which we possess. They should have given us the best snapshot of that time, yet they tell us little concerning the prophet’s life or teachings. In fact, oddly enough nowhere in these documents is there a veneration of Muhammad as a prophet!

B4: Contradictions

A further problem with the traditions are the contradictions, confusions and inconsistencies as well as anomalies which are evident throughout. For instance Crone asks, “What do we do with Baladhuri’s statement that the Qibla (direction for prayer) in the first Kufan mosque was to the west…that there are so many Fatimas, and that ‘Ali is sometimes Muhammad’s brother? It is a tradition in which information means nothing and leads nowhere.” 56

Certain authors wrote reports which contradict other reports which they had themselves written 57. Al-Tabari, for instance, often gives different, and sometimes conflicting accounts of the same incidents 58. The question of how far al-Tabari edited his material therefore remains an open one. Did he select the akhbar (short narratives) which he used in order to develop and illustrate major themes about the history of the Islamic state? We don’t know.

Ibn Ishaq informs us that Muhammad stepped into a political vacuum upon entering Yathrib (Medina), but then later tells us that he snatched away authority from a well-established ruler there 59. Ibn Ishaq also relates that the Jews in Medina were supportive of their Arab neighbours, and yet were molested by them 60. Which of these contradictory accounts are we to believe? As Crone points out, “the stories are told with complete disregard for what the situation in Medina may or may not have been like in historical fact.” 61

Another difficulty are the seeming contradictory accounts given by different compilers 62. Many are variations on a common theme. Take for example the 15 different accounts of Muhammad’s encounter with a representative of a non-Islamic religion who recognizes him as a future prophet 63. Some traditions place this encounter during his infancy 64, others when he was nine or twelve years old 65, while others say he was twenty-five at the time 66. Some traditions maintain that he was seen by Ethiopian Christians 67, or by Jews 68, while others maintain it was a seer or a Kahin at either Mecca, or Ukaz or Dhu’l-Majaz 69. Crone concludes that what we have here is nothing more than “fifteen equally fictitious versions of an event that never took place.” 70

Consequently it is difficult to ascertain which reports are authentic, and which are to be discarded. This is a problem which confounds Muslims and orientalists even today.

B5: Similarities

On the other hand, many of the traditions reflect the same material as the others, implying the recycling of the same body of data down through the centuries without any reference to where it originated.

Take for example al-Tabari’s history of the life of the prophet which is much the same as Ibn Hisham’s Sira, and much the same as his “Commentary on the Qur’an,” which is much the same as Bukhari’s Hadith collection. Because of their similarities at such a late date, they seem to point to a singular source early in the ninth century, from which all the others took their material 71. Does this suggest a “canon” of material authorized by the Ulama? Possibly, but we can never be sure.

These materials, consequently, create immense problems for the historian who may only consider them authentic if there is observable data which can be objectively assessed to be derived from outside the secondary sources themselves, such as the primary sources from which these traditions were obtained. Yet we have few if any to refer to. The question, therefore, must be asked, Did the primary sources ever exist, and if so would we be able to recognize them, using the secondary material at our disposal?’

B6: Proliferation

A further problem with these traditions is that of proliferation 72. As we have mentioned, these works begin to appear not earlier than the eighth century (200-300 years after the event to which they refer). Then suddenly they proliferate by the hundreds of thousands. Why? How can we explain this proliferation?

Take the instance of the death of ‘Abdallah, the father of Muhammad. The compilers of the mid to late eighth century (Ibn Ishaq and Ma’mar) were agreed that Abdallah had died early enough to leave Muhammad an orphan; but as to the specific details of his death, God knew best’ 73.

Further on into the ninth century more seems to be known. Waqidi, who wrote fifty years later tells us not only when Abdallah died, but how he died, where he died, what his age was, and the exact place of his burial. According to Michael Cook, “this evolution in the course of half a century from uncertainty to a profusion of precise detail suggests that a fair amount of what Waqidi knew was not knowledge.” 74 This is rather typical of Waqidi. He was always willing to give precise dates, locations, names where Ibn Ishaq had none 75. “It is no wonder,” Crone retorts,

that scholars are so fond of Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown earlier to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conslusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq.” 76

Consequently, without any real supervision, or the desire to present any documentation the compilers became more than what their office permitted.

Muslim scholars who are aware of this proliferation excuse it by contending that the Muslim religion was beginning to stabilize at this time. Thus, it was natural that the literary works would also begin to appear more numerous. Earlier written material, they say, was no longer relevant for the new Islam, and consequently was either discarded or lost 77.

While there is some credence to this theory, one would assume that even a few of these documents would have remained, tucked away in some library, or within someone’s collection. Yet there is nothing, and this is suspicious.

Of more importance, however, is whether the “Uthmanic Qur’anic text” (the final recension, supposedly compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit in 646-650 A.D., and the source for our contemporary Qur’an) would be included in this scenario? Certainly it would have been considered to be of relevance, for, as we have previously mentioned, according to tradition all of the other copies and codices were burned by the Caliph Uthman soon after, leaving this one text, from which four copies were made. Where are these copies today? The earliest manuscript segments of the Qur’an which we possess are not dated earlier then 690-750 A.D.! 78 Are those who hold this position willing to admit that these four copies were also discarded because they were no longer relevant for the new Islam?

Furthermore, the sheer number of Hadiths which suddenly appear in the ninth century creates a good deal of scepticism. It has been claimed that by the mid-ninth century there were over 600,000 hadith, or early stories about the prophet. In fact, tradition has it that they were so numerous that the ruling Caliph asked Al Bukhari, the well-known scholar, to collect the true sayings of the prophet out of the 600,000. Obviously, even then there was doubt concerning the veracity for many of these Hadith.

Bukhari never spelled out the criteria which guided his choice, except for vague pronouncements of “unreliability” or “unsuitability” 79. In the end, he retained only 7,397 of the hadith, or roughly a mere 1.2%! However, allowing for repetition, the net total was 2,762, gathered, it is said, from the 600,000 80. What this means is that of the 600,000 hadith 592,603 of them were false, and had to be scrapped. Thus nearly 99% of these hadith were considered spurious. This beggars belief!

Ironically it is just this sort of scenario which creates doubt about the authenticity of any of the hadith. Where did these 600,000 sayings come from in the first place if so many were considered to be spurious? Were any of them written down? Do we have any evidence of their existence before this time? None at all!

The fact that they suddenly materialized at this period (in the ninth century, or 250 years after the event to which they refer), and just as suddenly were rejected, seems to suggest that they were created or adopted at this time, and not at an earlier date. This echoes the statement made earlier by Schacht concerning the need by compilers of the ninth century to authenticate borrowed laws and traditions by finding a link with the Prophet. In their haste they borrowed much too liberally, which in turn, forced the Ulama to step in and canonize those hadith which they considered supported their agenda.

That still leaves us with the problem of how they decided which hadith were authentic and which were not.

B7: Isnad

To answer this problem, Muslim scholars maintain that the primary means for choosing between the authentic and the spurious hadith was a process of oral transmission called in Arabic Isnad. This, Muslims contend, was the science which was used by Bukhari, Tabari and other ninth and tenth century compilers to authenticate their compilations. In order to know who was the original author of the numerous hadith at their disposal, the compilers provided a list of names which supposedly traced back the authorship through time to the prophet himself. Because of its importance for our discussion, this science of Isnad needs to be explained in greater detail:

In order to give credibility to a hadith, or a narrative, a list of names was attached to each document supposedly designating through whom the hadith had been passed down. It was a chain of names of transmitters, stating, I received this from ____ who obtained it from ____ who got it from a companion of the prophet.’ (Rippin 1990:37-39)

While we in the West find oral transmission suspect, it was well developed within the Arab world, and the vehicle for passing down much of their history. The problem with oral transmission is that by its very nature, it can be open to corruption as it has no written formula or documentation to corroborate it. Thus, it can easily be manipulated according to the agenda of the orator (much like a child’s game of “Chinese Whispers”).

For the early Muslim, however, an Isnad was considered essential, as it gave the signature of those from whom the document came. Our concern is how we can know whether the names were authentic? Did the person to whom the Isnad is credited really say what he is credited as saying?

A compiler, in order to gain credibility for his writings, would list historically well-known individuals in his Isnad, similar to the custom we use today of requesting noteworthy individuals to write forwards in our books. The larger the list within the chain the greater its credibility. But unlike those who write forwards today, the ninth century compilers had no documentation to prove that their sources were authentic. Those individuals whose names they borrowed were long dead, and could not vouch for what they had allegedly said.

Curiously, “isnads had a tendency to grow backwards.’ In certain early texts a statement will be found attributed to a caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, for example, or will even be unattributed, as in the case of certain legal maxims; elsewhere, the same statements will be found in the form of hadith reports with fully documented isnads going back to Muhammad or one of his companions.” (Rippin 1990:38))

It therefore seems likely that isnads were used to give authority to certain hadith which “clearly are concerned with matters of interest to the community in generations after Muhammad but which have been framed as predictions made by him.” 81These isnads and the hadith which they supposedly authenticate merely testify to what the exegetes chose to believe rather than to what can be deemed as historical facts, which in turn weakens that which they sought to communicate 82.

It is rather obvious, therefore, that the isnads rather then corroborating and substantiating the material which we find in the Muslim traditions, present instead an even greater problem. We are left with the realisation that without any continuous transmission between the seventh and eighth centuries, the traditions can only be considered a snapshot of the later ninth and tenth centuries and nothing more 83.

What is more, the science of Isnad, which set about to authenticate those very Isnads only began in the tenth century, long after the Isnads in question had already been compiled 84, and so have little relevance for our discussion. Consequently, because it is such an inexact science, the rule of thumb’ for most historians today is: the larger the list, which includes the best known historical names, the more suspect its authenticity.’ We will never know, therefore, whether the names listed in the Isnads ever gave or received the information with which they are credited.

B8: Storytelling

Possibly the greatest argument against the use of Muslim Tradition as a source is the problem of transmission. To better understand the argument we need to delve into the hundred or so years prior to Ibn Ishaq (765A.D.), and after the death of Muhammad in (632 A.D.), since, “the Muslim ‘rabbis’ to whom we owe [Muhammad’s] biography were not the original memory banks of the Prophet’s tradition.” 85

According to Patricia Crone, a Danish researcher in this field of source criticism, we know little about the original material, as the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over a period of a century and a half 86. These storytellers were called Kussas. It is believed that they compiled their stories using the model of the Biblical legends which were quite popular in and around the Byzantine world at that time, as well as stories of Iranian origin. From their stories there grew up a literature which belonged to the historical novel rather than to history (Levi Della Vida 1934:441)).

Within these stories were examples of material which were transmitted by oral tradition for generations before they were written down. They were of two kinds: Mutawatir (material handed down successively) and Mashhur (material which was well-known or widely known) 87.

Patricia Crone, in her book: Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, maintains that most of what the later compilers received came from these story-tellers (Kussas) who were traditionally the real repositories of history:

…it was the storytellers who created the [Muslim] tradition. The sound historical tradition to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. It is because the storytellers played such a crucial role in the formation of the tradition that there is so little historicity to it. As storyteller followed upon storyteller, the recollection of the past was reduced to a common stock of stories, themes, and motifs that could be combined and recombined in a profusion of apparently factual accounts. Each combination and recombination would generate new details, and as spurious information accumulated, genuine information would be lost. In the absence of an alternative tradition, early scholars were forced to rely on the tales of storytellers, as did Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, and other historians. It is because they relied on the same repertoire of tales that they all said such similar things. (Crone 1987:225)

ecause the earliest written accounts of Muhammad’s life were not written until the late Umayyid period (around 750 A.D.), “the religious tradition of Islam,” Crone believes, “is thus a monument to the destruction rather than the preservation of the past,” 88 and “it is [this] tradition where information means nothing and leads nowhere.” 89 Therefore, it stands to reason that Muslim Tradition is simply not trustworthy as it has had too much development during the course of its transmission from one generation to the next. In fact, we might as well repeat what we have already stated: the traditions are relevant only when they speak on the period in which they were written, and nothing more.

There are so many difficulties in the traditions: the late dates for the earliest manuscripts, the loss of credibility due to a later agenda, and the contradictions which are evident when one reads them, as well as the proliferation due to aggressive redaction by the storytellers, and the inexact science of Isnad used for corroboration. Is it any wonder that historians, while obliged to refer to the material presented by Muslim Tradition (because of its size and scope), prefer to find alternative explanations to the traditionally accepted ideas and theories, while looking elsewhere for further source material? Having referred earlier to the Qur’an, it makes sense, therefore, to return to it, as there are many Muslim scholars who claim that it is the Qur’an itself which affords us the best source for its own authority, and not the traditions.

1. Pfander, 1910:262

2. Rippin 1985:155; and 1990:3,25, 60

3. Wansbrough 1977:160-163

4. Humphreys 1991:71, 83-89

5. Wansbrough 1978:58-59

6. Crone 1987:225-226; Humphreys 1991:73

7. refer to Crone’s studies on the problems of the traditions,’ especially those which were dependent on local storytellers, in Meccan Trade….1987, pp.203-230 and Slaves on Horses, 1980, pp. 3-17

8. Rippin 1990:3-4

9. Nevo 1994:108; Wansbrough 1978:119; Crone 1987:204

10. suras 11:114; 17:78-79; 30:17-18 and possibly 24:58

11. Glasse 1991:381

12. Crone 1980:6

13. Wansbrough 1978:119

14. Nevo 1994:108; Crone 1980:5-8

15. Calder 1993

16. Humphreys 1991:69

17. Humphreys 1991:69

18. Humphreys 1991:80

19. Schacht 1949:143-154

20. Humphreys 1991:81-83

21. Pearson 1986:406

22. Sura 85:22

23. Schimmel 1984:4

24. McDowell 1990:43-55

25. McDowell 1972:39-49

26. Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6

27. Gilchrist 1989:139 and 154

28. Gilchrist 1989:150

29. Lings & Safadi 1976:17-20; Gilchrist 1989:151

30. see Gilchrist, 1989, pp.151-153

31. Lings & Safadi 1976:17-20

32. Vanderkam 1994: 17

33. Vanderkam 1994:16

34. Lings & Safadi 1976:12-13,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146; 152-153

35. Lings & Safadi 1976:17

36. Lings & Safadi 1976:12,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146

37. Gilchrist 1989:144-147

38. Lings & Safadi 1976:11; Gilchrist 1989:144-145

39. Gilchrist 1989:144

40. Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144

41. Gilchrist 1989:147-148,153

42. Schimmels 1984:4

43. Humphreys 1991:71

44. Humphreys 1991:71-72

45. Humphreys 1991:73, 83; Schacht 1949:143-145; Goldziher 1889-90:72

46. Humphreys 1991:83

47. Schacht 1949:153-154

48. chacht 1949:145

49. Rippin 1985:155-156

50. Schacht 1949:147-149; Wansbrough 1978:119

51. Rippin 1990:76-77

52. Schacht 1949:145; Rippin 1990:78

53. Levi Della Vida 1934:441

54. Levi Della Vida 1934:441

55. Crone 1987:213-215

56. Crone 1980:12

57. Humphreys 1991:73; Crone 1987:217-218

58. Kennedy 1986:362

59. Ibn Hisham ed.1860: 285, 385, 411

60. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:286, 372, 373, 378

61. Crone 1987:218

62. Rippin 1990:10-11

63. Crone 1987:219-220

64. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:107

65. Ibn Sa’d 1960:120

66. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:119

67. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:107

68. Abd al-Razzaq 1972: 318

69. Ibn Sa’d 1960:166; Abd al-Razzaq 1972:317; Abu Nu’aym 1950:95, 116f

70. Crone 1987:220

71. Crone 1980:11

72. Rippin 1990:34

73. Cook 1983:63

74. Cook 1983:63-65

75. Crone 1987:22

76. Crone 1987:224

77. Humphreys 1991:72

78. Schimmel 1984:4

79. Humphreys 1991:73

80. A.K.C. 1993:12

81. Rippin 1990:38

82. Crone 1987:214

83. Crone 1987:226

84. Humphreys 1991:81

85. Crone 1980:5

86. Crone 1980:3

87. Welch 1991:361

88. Crone 1980:7

89. Crone 1980:12

The Origins of the Koran

This is a summary of The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1998). Ibn Warraq has provided a valuable collection of some of the most important critical studies of the Koran over the past century. Most of the essays are now a bit dated, and those familiar with the modern revisionist approach to Islamic history will recognise the areas where further study has proposed conclusions very different to some of the authors included here. These essays are foundational reading for all students of the Koran. They reveal many areas where new study is needed as well as providing a good grounding in the materials available to us both within the Islamic tradition and from non-Muslim source. Ibn Warraq himself provides a helpful discussion of the state of contemporary research, and the sections on the collation, variants, and sources of the Koran contains essays by such scholars as Arthur Jeffery and St. Clair-Tisdall. It is to be expected that this type of criticism will be summarily dismissed by most Muslim readers, but it should be very informative for students of religious history. This summary is not authorised by the editor, though it attempts to be a faithful representation of the ideas in this book and does not necessarily reflect my own views.

Summary by Sharon Morad, Leeds

The Origins of the Koran:

Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book

Edited by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books,
Summarised by Sharon Morad, Leeds

Part One: INTRODUCTION

Chapter One: Introduction (pp. 9-35)

-Ibn Warraq

There is a notable lack of critical scholarship on the Koran.

Major questions still needing answers include:

1. How did the Koran come to us? [issues of compilation and transmission]

2. When was it written and who wrote it?

3. What are the sources of the Koran? [the origin of stories, legends, and principles]

4. What is the Koran? [How do we determine authenticity?]

The traditional account claims that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, written down in bits, and not collated before Muhammad’s death.

The Collection Under Abu Bakr (p. 11)

Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign.

1. ‘Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down?

2. Or was it Abu Bakr’s idea? Or maybe ‘Ali’s?

3. There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not? Why was this collation not an official codex but rather the private property of Hafsa?

It sounds like these traditions were invented to credit the popular Abu Bakr and (more significantly) to debit the much maligned ‘Uthman.

The Collection of the Koran (pp. 12-13)

‘Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But…

1. The Arabic of the Koran was not a dialect.

2. There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)

3. In these stories there is no mention of Zaid’s involvement in an earlier rescension.

Most scholars assume that the ‘Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the ‘Uthman story as well.

One major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early Muslims? Can we assume that they not only remembered everything perfectly, but that they heard and understood Muhammad perfectly in the first place?

Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added (pp. 13-18)

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. ‘Uthman, A’isha, and Ibn Ka’b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas’ud, Ubai ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). ‘Uthman’s codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although ‘Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn’t some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

Scepticism of the Sources (pp. 18-34)

Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq’s work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.

Scholars have attempted to distinguish which hadith contain real information from those containing legendary, theological or political embellishment. Wellhausen insists that the 8th century version (i.e. Ibn Ishaq) was accurate, and later versions were deliberate fictions designed to alter the 8th century story. Caetani and Cammens suggest that most sira were invented to construct an ‘ideal’ past and a justification for contemporary exaggerated exegesis of the Koran. Most scholars conclude that the stories about Muhammad prior to becoming a prophet are fictitious. In his important critique of the hadith Goldhizer argues that many hadith accepted even by the most rigorous collectors were 8th and 9th century forgeries with fictitious isnads. These hadith arose out of quarrels between the ‘Umayyads and their opponents – both sides freely inventing hadith to support their respective positions. The manufacture of hadith speeded up under the ‘Abbasids who were vying with the ‘Alids for primacy. Even Muslims acknowledged a vast number of forgeries [~90% of hadith were discarded], but even so the collectors were not as rigorous as could be hoped. Even in the 10th century over 200 forgeries were identified in Bukhari. At one point 12 different versions of his work existed.

In his study of the hadith Schacht concludes:

1. Isnads only began to be widely used after the ‘Abbasid revolution, and then they were formulated carelessly.

2. The better an isnad looks the more likely it was to be spurious

3. No existing hadith can reliably be ascribed to Muhammad

4. Most of the classical corpus was widely disseminated after Shafi’i (820) and most of he legal tradition was formulated in the 9th century.

His methodology includes looking at legal decisions – if they didn’t refer to a crucial tradition it’s because the tradition wasn’t there. He argues that traditions were created in response to 9th century conditions and then redacted back several centuries. Islam cannot be traced accurately back before the 8th century.

Wansbrough argues that the Koran and the hadith developed out of sectarian controversies and were projected back to the time of Muhammad. Islamic law developed after contact with Rabbinic Judaism outside the Hijaz. Muhammad is portrayed as a Mosaic-type prophet, but the religion was Arabised – Arabic prophet, Arabic Holy language, Arabic scripture. At the same time as the formation of this Arabic religion we see the beginning of interest in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, further suggestive of a rise in Arab nationalism. Negative evidence further supports a late date for the creation of the Koran. There is no record of the Koran being used in legal decisions before the 9th century, and the Fiqh Akbar I (a sort of Muslim creed drafted in the mid-8th century to represent orthodox views) contains no reference to the Koran.

Cook, Crone, and Hinds argue that Islam developed as an attempt to find a common identity among peoples united in conquests that began when the Arabs joined Messianic Judaism in an attempt to retake the Promised Land. Looking at non-Muslim all we can say is that Muhammad lived, was a merchant and taught about Abraham. But other than that non-Muslim sources do not confirm the traditional Islamic account. We have no reason to think that he lived in central Arabia (much less Mecca), or that he taught about the Koran. The Koran first appears late in the 7th century, and the first inscriptions with Koranic material (e.g. on coins and the Dome of the Rock) show trivial divergence from the canonical text. The earliest Greek sources say that Muhammad was alive in 634 (Muslim sources say he died in 632). In the 660’s the Armenian chronicler describes the community of Jews and Arabs, but Muslims say that the Arabs split with the Jews during Muhammad’s lifetime. The Armenian also describes Palestine as the focal point of the Ishmaelite (i.e. Arab) activity, though Muslims say this focus switched to Mecca in AH 2.

The result of their research is described in Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977). The major thesis of this work is that Muhammad preached a message of Jewish Messianism and became involved in a joint attempt by Jews and Arabs, citing common Abrahamic decent, to reconquer Palestine. Therefore the earliest non-Muslim sources report strong anti-Christian sentiment. But, eventually the Arabs quarrelled with the Jews in Palestine and needed to establish a separate religious identity. They were inhibited by lack of an indigenous religious structure, so they borrowed heavily from the Samaritans. For example, note the similar emphasis on the unity of God, the fatiha resembles a Samaritan prayer, the Koran only seems to know of the Torah or the Psalms (the Samaritans do not recognise the rest of the Hebrew scriptures), the importance of Moses, and the similarities between the Samaritan view of the Messiah and the Muslim concept of the Mahdi.

---

Samaritan structure with Muslim parallels

 ProphetMajor eventScriptureHoly MountainSanctuary near MountainSamaritanMosesExodusPentateuchMt. Sinai/ GerizimShechemMuslimMuhammadHijraKoranMt. HiraMecca

---

Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity argues that the traditions about the caliphate are fictitious, and Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam claims that the existence of the Koran required the invention of stories to explain it. These stories became more detailed and elaborate over time and the further from Arabia that they were collected.

Chapter Two: The Koran (pp. 36-63)

-Theodor Nöldeke

The present Koran is identical with the original. Muhammad probably could read and write, but he tended to use a scribe. There is some suggestion that part of the Koran was written down during Muhammad’s lifetime, since he had its inserted and deleted in large suras which he probably could not have remembered unless they were written down. The Koran itself admits that Muslims accused Muhammad of changing verses (S. 16:103). Variations are explained by the abrogation of verses and laws.

The Quraishites preferred the stories by Nadr son of Harith, who told Persian myths – so Muhammad had him executed.

The Koran contains many Biblical characters, but the stories are mixed up. The variations came from either the Jewish Haggada or the New Testament apocrypha or they are simply mistakes made by a listener (e.g. Haman is believed to be the minister of Pharaoh, and Mary is believed to be the sister of Aaron).

The style is semi-poetical. Rhyme is maintained throughout, but rhythm is rarely used. There are many reasons to criticise the style – arbitrary leaps between subjects, annoying word repetitions, and poor grammar. The challenge to ‘produce a sura like it’ is completely subjective. Muhammad repeatedly emphasised that the Koran is in Arabic, but he borrowed many foreign terms to express ideas that had no Arabic expression. Sometimes he misused these terms (e.g. the Aramaic ‘furquan’ meaning ‘redemption’ is used to mean ‘revelation’).

Differences between the Meccan and Medinan suras are due to a change in circumstances as Muhammad moved from being the preacher of a small, despised sect to becoming an autocratic ruler. However, establishing the chronology of revelation is almost impossible. The traditions that attempt to do so disagree with each other and are not reliable. In fact, there is very little reliable information at all about Muhammad before the Hijra. We are not even sure when to date the beginning of his prophethood (probably ~610). The Meccan suras tend to be short and are reminiscent of the oracles of pagan soothsayers, even beginning with the same oaths involving heavenly objects like stars. The greatest passage in the Koran is S. 1 – al-fatiha. This shows the influence of the Jews, especially in the reference to God as ‘Rahman.’ The Medinan suras are longer and contain sketches of the histories of previous prophets, laws, and diatribes against Jews and Christians. The beginning of each sura has a cryptic series of letters – for which no meaning is known.

After the death of Muhammad no one knew the entire Koran by heart. Many Arabs revolted against Abu Bakr and had to be forcibly put down. The greatest opposition came from Maslama (a.k.a. Musailima) who claimed to be a prophet but was executed by Abu Bakr. Then ‘Umar asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collate the Koran. The suras were arranged from longest to shortest, as even then the chronological order was imperfectly known. That codex was given to Hafsa. Other scholars also compiled their own codices. These became sources of contention because they different from one another. So, ‘Uthman asked Zaid to write another codex and all the others were destroyed despite a fair amount of grumbling by their compilers. The variations between the codices could not be variations of dialect, as at this point the Arabic script could not express such variations, being both unvowelled and unpointed. The distinctives of the destroyed codices have survived somewhat in oral tradition. Ibn K’ab’s codex contains two extra suras (similar to al-fatiha) and Ibn Masu’d has a different order and omits suras 1, 113, and 114. Ibn Mas’ud seriously opposed the use of Zaid’s codex over his own, arguing that he [ibn Mas’ud] had been a disciple of Muhammad for longer and knew the Koran better than Zaid. Even after the production of Zaid’s codex a great variety of different readings (extending to meaning and not just pronunciation) were possible through different means of pointing and vowelling. Eventually seven systems of pointing [each with two systems of vowelling] were considered valid.

Part Two: THE COLLECTION AND THE VARIANTS OF THE KORAN

Chapter Three: Uthman and the Recension of the Koran (pp. 67-75)

-Leone Caetani

1. The Koran today is not the same as that given by MuhammadDuring the lifetime of the prophet and immediately afterwards verses were circulating that were either apocryphal or mistakenly attributed to the prophet. The ‘Uthmanic recension was necessary to deal with the uncertainty regarding the canonical text. “It is clear that in the year 30 AH no official redaction existed. Tradition itself admits that there were various ‘schools,’ one in Iraq, one in Syria, one in al-Basrah, besides others in smaller places, and then, exaggerating in an orthodox sense this scandal, tries to make out that the divergences were wholly immaterial; but such affirmations accord ill with the opposition excited by the caliph’s [i.e. ‘Uthman’s] act in al-Kufah. The official version must have contained somewhat serious modifications.” (pg. 69)

2. The first recension under Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is a myth

   1. Why did Abu Bakr practically conceal his copy, especially if the death of so many Muslims at the battle of Yamamah really did endanger the existence of the Koran?

   2. How was it that there was still no consensus regarding the Koran in AH 30 if this official codex had been made?

3. The ‘Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motivesMuhammad made no provision for continuing political and religious leadership after his death. Without his guidance, the knowledge of men who remembered his teaching (reciters or ‘Qurra’) became valuable. The Qurra spread with the empire establishing schools and teaching the lay populace and other Qurra. Rival groups developed, and many Qurra also began to voice strong disapproval of the caliph and of the military and political leaders who were profoundly ignorant of the Koran. The Qurra encouraged a general revolt against ‘Uthman in AH 25. ‘Uthman reacted quickly, ordered an official text to be complied and branded anyone who recited the Koran differently as a heretic. This effectively broke the power of the Qurra by taking the monopoly of knowledge about the Koran out of their hands.

4. We must revise our opinion of ‘Uthman’s character and not be mislead by later Muslim bad press.Tradition has many evil things to say about ‘Uthman, but they dare not criticise his recension, because the Koran resulting from it is the foundation of Islam. Many of the complaints about ‘Uthman are anti-‘Ummayyad polemics and unjustly blame him for the financial blunders of his predecessor, ‘Umar. The invention of the Abu Bakr recension effectively reduces ‘Uthman’s role to nothing more than copier of a previously compiled text. This accomplished the dual goal of preserving the authority of the existing text, while failing to give any credit to ‘Uthman for preserving the Koran.

Chapter Four: Three Ancient Korans (pp. 76-96)

-Alphonse Mingana

1. The sources of the Koran – Muhammad was illiterate. He depended on oral information from Christians and especially from Jews. The corruption of oral transmission explains the inaccuracies of the stories. Historical errors include: Mary being the sister of Aaron(S. 3:31ff), Haman being Pharaoh’s minister (S.28:38), and the conflation of Gideon and Saul (S. 2:250). There are contradictory attitudes toward non-Muslims. S. 2:189 says to fight against unbelievers and Suratut-Taubah says to make war on those who disagree, but S. 2:579 says there is no compulsion in religion and S. 24:45 says to dispute only kindly with Jews and Christians.

2. If we strip away the commentary, the Koran is inexplicable. Muslim theologians explain the contradictions by trying to put ayat (verses) in a historical context and by appealing to the doctrine of abrogated and abrogating verses. Without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.

3. Transmission from 612-632? – Muhammad never ordered the Koran to be written down, and when first asked to do so by Abu Bakr, Zaid ibn Thabit refused, arguing that he had no right to do so if Muhammad hadn’t thought it necessary. (The wonderful memory of the Arabs has been overstated. For example, if we compare versions of the elegy ‘Itabah‘ in different tribes we see significant variations.) Some verse were apparently written down, but we’re not told which ones and we have no idea how they were preserved. What happened to the scraps after codification? They couldn’t have been just chucked away – what sacrilege!

4. Who is the compiler of our standard text and is it authentic? Zaid ibn Thabit supposedly wrote the whole text of the Koran at least twice (under Abu Bakr and then under ‘Uthman). The first copy was given to Hafsa, but 15 years later the believers were still arguing about what the Koran was, so ‘Uthman had Zaid write up a second copy and destroyed all the others. Zaid probably tried to reproduce faithfully the words of Muhammad, otherwise surely he would have improved the style and grammar and amended the historical and typographical errors!) Indeed, the Koran today is substantially identical with this second recension, though not necessarily with the words of Muhammad. The claim that the Koran is perfect Arabic is absurd – there are many examples of repetition, weak rhyme, changing letters to force a rhyme, foreign words, bizarre usage or change of names (e.g. Terah to Azar, Saul to Talut (S. 2:248250), Enoch to Idris (S. 19:57)

II. The text of the Koran has traditionally been studied through (1) commentaries, (2) grammarians studying Arabic vowels and diacritical points, and (3) types of script used.

1. The first commentator was Ibn Abbas. He is the main source of traditional exegesis, though many of his opinions are considered heretical. Other important commentators include Tabari (839-923), az-Zamakhshari (1075-1144), and al-Baidhawi (d. 1286)

2. Diacritical marks did not exist before the ‘Umayyad caliphate. They were borrowed from Hebrew and Aramaic. Important grammarians include Khalil ibn Ahmad (718-791) who invented the ‘hamza’, and Sibawaihi (Khalil). Vowels were not discovered until the end of the 8th at a study centre in Baghdad century under the influence of Aramaic.

3. Three major scripts are used – Kufic, Naskhi, and Kufo-Naskhi. The type of script gives the first rough division of age of manuscripts. More precise age determination is arrived at by considering other features, like the use of diacritical points.

Chapter Five: The Transmission of the Koran (pp. 97-113)

-Alphonse Mingana

According to Muslim writers (pp. 98-104)

• There is not much consensus among the traditions about the collection of the Koran. The earliest records about compilation are from Ibn Said (844), Bukhari (870) and Muslim (874).

• Ibn’ Sa’d lists 10 different people who are supposed to have collected the Koran in the time of Muhammad (with a number of different hadith supporting each contender). Then he also gives hadith attributing collation to ‘Uthman during ‘Umar’s caliphate, and in another place attributes collation to ‘Umar himself.

• Bukhari’s stories are different. He gives credit to the collection of the Koran during Muhammad’s lifetime to a variety of people, but not the same list as Ibn Sa’d gives). Then he has the story of Abu Bakr’s recension carried out exclusively by Zaid ibn Thabit. This is immediately followed by hadith about the ‘Uthmanic recension work done by Zaid and three others.

• The last two traditions (the Abu Bakr and ‘Uthmanic recensions) have been accepted above all the others – why? Also, if they had already assembled the whole Koran, why was it so hard to produce a codex? These two recensions are likely as fictitious as the others.

• Other Muslim historians confuse the picture farther:

  • The author of the Fihrist lists all the stories given by both Ibn Sa’d and Bukhari, then adds in two more.

  • Tabari tells us that Ali B. Abi Talib and ‘Uthman wrote the Koran, but when they were absent ibn Ka’b and Zaid ibn Thabit did so. The people at that time accused ‘Uthman of reducing the Koran from many books to one.

  • Wakidi writes that a Christian slave, ibn Qumta, taught Muhammad and that ibn Abi Sarh claimed that he could change what he wanted in the Koran just by writing to ibn Qumta.

  • Another source of traditions attributes the collection of the Koran to the caliph ‘Abdul-Malik b. Marwan (684-704) and to his lieutenant Hajjaj b. Yusuf. Barhebraeus and Jaluld-Din as-Sayuti attribute it to the former, Ibn Dumak and Makrizi to the latter. Ibnul-Athir says that al-Hajjaj proscribed the reading of al-Masu’d’s version, and Ibn Khallikan says that al-Hajjaj tried to get writers to agree on a text but was unsuccessful. Indeed variant readings continued and were recorded by Zamakhsharia and Baidhawi, though anyone who followed the variants was severely punished.

Transmission of the Koran according to Christian writers (pp. 104-111)

1. 639 CE – discussion between a Christian patriarch and ‘Amr b. al-‘Asd (summary of conversation recorded in a manuscript dated 874 CE). We learn:

   1. The Bible had not been translated into Arabic

   2. Teaching regarding the Torah, inheritance, and denial of the divinity and death of Christ existed in the Arab community.

   3. No reference was made to any Arab holy book.

   4. Some of the Arab conquerors were literate.

2. 647 CE – a letter from the patriarch of Seleucia, Isho’yabb III, refers to the beliefs of the Arabs without any reference to the Koran.

3. 680 CE – the anonymous writer at Guidi knows nothing about the Koran, thinks that the Arabs are simply professing the Abrahamic faith, and doesn’t realise that Muhammad is a religious character.

4. 690 CE – John Bar Penkaye, writing under the reign of ‘Abdul-Malik, has no idea that the Koran existed.

Only in the 8th century does the Koran become an item of debate between Muslims and Christians. Early Christian critics of the Koran include: Abu Nosh (secretary to the governor of Mosul), Timothy (the Nestorian patriarch of Seleucia), and, most importantly, al-Kindi (830 CE – i.e. 40 years before Bukhari!).

Kindi’s major argument: ‘Ali and Abu Bakr had been squabbling over the succession to Muhammad. ‘Ali began collecting the Koran, and others demanded that their bits be included. A variety of codices were written. ‘Ali pointed out the divergences to ‘Uthman, hoping to undermine them, so ‘Uthman had all but one copy destroyed. Four copies of ‘Uthman’s codex were made, but all the originals were destroyed. When Hajjaj b. Yusuf became powerful (‘Abdul-Malik was caliph – 684-704) he gathered together all the copies of the Koran, changed passages as he wished, destroyed the others and made six copies of the new version. So, how can we possibly distinguish the original from the counterfeit?

A sort of Muslim response to Kindi is found in an apology for Islam written 20 years later in 835 CE by the physician ‘Ali b. Rabbanat-Tabari at the request of the caliph Mutaw’akkil. In it Tabari ignores Kindi’s historical point and merely asserts that the Sahaba (i.e. companions of the prophet) were good men. Then he lays out an apology for Islam that is significant because it pre-dates the hadith.

In summary – the Christians don’t seem to know of the official Koran until the end of the 8th century and they seem to see Islam as a political venture with a bit of religious dressing.

Conclusion (pp. 111-113)

1. Almost nothing of the Koran was written at the death of Muhammad. It’s uncertain as to how well known writing was in Mecca and Medina at that time.

2. Some years after Muhammad’s death his companions began writing down oracles of Muhammad. This gave them prestige. ‘Uthman’s version was given royal sanction and the others were destroyed. Certainly dialectical differences were not the problem, as Arabic script at that time could not differentiate between dialectical variations anyway.

3. ‘Uthman’s Koran was probably written on scrolls of parchment (suhufs) and then, under ‘Abdul Malk and Hajjaj b. Yusuf these were placed in book form with a fair amount of redaction, some parts deleted and others added.

Chapter Six: Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran (pp. 114-134)

-Arthur Jeffrey

Muslim writers have not seemed interested in textual criticism of the Koran since 322 AH when the text was fixed by Wazirs Ibn Muqla and Ibn ‘Isa (helped by Ibn Ibn Mujahid). After that point those who used old or variant readings were punished (Ibn Miqsam and Ibn Shanabudh are good examples of what happened to those who made the attempt). Though the actual manuscripts have perished, these variations are somewhat preserved in the commentators of az-Zamakhshari (d. 538), Abu Hayyan of Spain (d. 745) and ash-Shawkani (d. 1250), and in the philology works of al-‘Ukbari (d. 616), Ibn Khalawaih (d. 370), and Ibn Jinni (d. 392). None of this information has been used to produce a critical text of the Koran.

Muslim tradition (i.e. that before his death the prophet had the Koran ordered and written out though not in book form) is largely fictitious. After all, this same tradition says that very little had been recorded and that large amounts of the Koran were in danger of being lost when Muslims were killed at Yamama.

Abu Bakr probably did collect something, as did a variety of others (whose names are not agreed on in any two lists preserved in the tradition); but his collection was not an official recension, rather a private matter. Some orthodox Muslims say the word ‘jama’a’ (“to collect”) only means “to memorise” in the traditions referring to the metropolitan codices, but as these collections were carried on camels and eventually burnt it is more likely that they were written codices. Different metropolitan areas followed different codices: Homs and Damascus followed al-Aswad, Kufa – Ibn Mas’ud, Basra – as-Ash’ari, and Syria – ibn Ka’b. Major divergences between these texts mandated ‘Uthman’s radical recension. The Qurra violently opposed him in this, and ibn Masu’d stubbornly refused to give his codex up until he was forced to do so.

Variants were preserved by commentators and philologists only when they were close enough to orthodoxy to help with tafsir. The ones they do preserve they insist were merely explanatory glosses on ‘Uthman’s text.

“The amount of material preserved in this way is, of course, relatively small, but it is remarkable that any at all has been preserved. With the general acceptance of a standard text other types of text, even when they escaped the flames, would gradually cease being transmitted from sheer lack of interest in them. Such readings from them as would be remembered and quoted among the learned would be only the relatively few readings that had some theological or philological interest, so that the great mass of variants would early disappear. Moreover, even with regard to such variants as did survive there were definite efforts at suppression in the interests of orthodoxy. On may refer, for instance, to the case of the great Baghdad scholar Ibn Shanabudh (245-328) who was admitted to be an eminent Koranic authority, but who was forced to make public recantation of his use of readings from the old codices.” (pg. 119)

Any of the more striking variants were not recorded because of fear of reprisal.

“For example, Abu Hayyan, Bahr VII 268, referring to a notorious textual variant, expressly says that in his work, though it is perhaps the richest in uncanonical variants that we have, he does not mention those variants where there is too wide a divergence from the standard text of ‘Uthman.”

The Masahif Books (pp. 120-126)

During the fourth Islamic century three books were written by Ibn al-Anbari, Ibn Ashta, and Ibn Abi Dawud, each entitled Kitab al-Masahif, and each discussing what was known of the lost codices. The former two are lost to us and known only in quotation; the third has survived. Ibn Abi Dawud is the third most important Hadith collector. He refers to fifteen primary codices and thirteen secondary codices (the later were mostly based on Mas’uds primary codex).

One major drawback to tracing variants through the Hadith is that there was not the same meticulous care taken over the transmission of the variants as over the canonical version, so authenticity is difficult to ascertain. However, despite the limitations, significant information is available to contribute toward the formation of a critical text. Thirty-two different books contain the main sources of variants.

Codex of Ibn Mas’ud (d. 33) (pp. 126-129)

Ibn Masu’d was an early convert. He participated in the Jijra’s to Abyssinia and Medina, was present at the battles of Badr and Uhud, was a personal servant of Muhammad, and learned seventy suras from the prophet. He was one of the earliest teachers of Islam, and was commended by the prophet himself for his knowledge of the Koran.

He produced a codex that was used in Kufa, and many copies were made of it. He indignantly refused to give his codex up because he argued it was more accurate than Zaid ibn Thabit’s. His codex did not include Suras 1, 113, and 114. He did not consider them a part of the Koran though he knew of them and offered variant readings of them. The order of his suras is also different from that ‘Uthman’s official codex.

Codex of Ubai B. Ka’b (d. 29 or 34) (pp. 129-131)

Ibn Ka’b was one of the Ansar. He was a secretary to Muhammad in Medina and is said to have written the treaty with the people of Jerusalem and to have been one of the four instructors commended by Muhammad. His personal codex was dominant in Syria even after standardisation. He appears to have been involved with the creation of ‘Uthman’s text, but tradition is garbled as to exactly how. He seems to have known the same number of suras as the authorised version, though the order is different. His personal codex never attained the popularity of Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, and it was destroyed early by ‘Uthman.

Codex of ‘Ali (d. 40) (pp. 132-134)

‘Ali was Muhammad’s son-in-law and supposedly began compiling a codex immediately upon the death of Muhammad. He was so engrossed in the task that he neglected to swear fealty to Abu Bakr. Some say he had access to a hidden store of Koranic materials. ‘Ali’s sura divisions were very different from ‘Uthman’s so it is difficult to tell if material was missing or added. ‘Ali supported ‘Uthman’s recension and burnt his own codex. It is hard to know if the variants ascribed to ‘Ali were in fact due to the original codex or to his interpretations of ‘Uthman’s codex.

Chapter 7: Progress in the Study of the Koran Text (pp. 135-144)

-Arthur Jeffrey

A quick look at Muslim commentaries reveals many difficulties with the vocabulary of the Koran. The commentators tended to assume that Muhammad meant the same things as they would mean by certain words, and they interpreted the Koran in light of the theological and judicial controversies of their time.

Jeffrey has already produced a lexicon of the non-Arab words in the Koran, but the Arabic words cannot properly be investigated until a critical text exists. The closest thing to a textus recepticus is the text tradition of Hafs from ‘Asim (the best of the three traditions of the Kufan school). A standard issue of this text tradition was officially produced by the Egyptian government in 1923.

Following the Muslim traditions, the text resulting from the ‘Uthmanic recension was unpointed and unvoweled. When diacritical marks were invented different traditions of pointing developed in the major metropolitan centers. Even when the consonants (huruf) were agreed different ways of voweling could be devised. So a large number of ikhtiyar fi’l huruf (i.e. traditions as to the consonants, as variations in pointing resulting in a varying consonantal text) developed. These systems not only differed regarding pointing and voweling, but occasionally used different consonants altogether, as if attempting to improve the ‘Uthmanic text. [NB: There are seven systems of pointing (i.e. ikhtiyar f’il huruf), each with two traditions of voweling, providing a total of fourteen canonical variations in reading. When citing a system both the source of the hurufand the source of the voweling are mentioned.)

In AH 322 Ibn Mujahid of Baghdad (a great Koranic authority) pronounced a fixed huruf (supposedly ‘Uthmanic) and forbade any other ikhtiyar and limited the variations in voweling to seven different systems. Later, three other systems were considered equally valid by some.

So, the text of the Koran has two major categories of variants, the canonical variants, restricted to patterns of voweling (of which the system of ‘Asim of Kufa according to Hafs is most popular for some reason), and the uncanonical consonantal variations.

Chapter 8: A Variant Text of the Fatiha (pp. 145-149)

-Arthur Jeffrey

The Fatiha (Sura 1) is generally not considered to be an original part of the Koran. Even the earliest Muslim commentators (e.g. Abu Bakr al Asamm d. 313) did not consider it canonical.

One variant form of the Fatiha is given in the Tadhkirat al-A’imma of Muhammad Baquir Majlisi (Tehran, 1331), another is given in a little book of fikh written about 150 years ago. These two vary from one another and from the textus recepticusthough the sense of all three remains the same. Variations include: replacing synonyms, changes in verb form, and one or two changes of words that are not synonyms by have generally related meanings (e.g. ‘r-rahmana (merciful) to ‘r-razzaqui(bountiful).) These variants to not improve grammar or clarity and seem to have no doctrinal significance; they are the sort that would exist in an oral prayer that was later fixed.

Khalil b. Ahmad, a Reader of the Basran school, offers yet another variant. He is a known to have transmitted from ‘Isa b. ‘Umar (d. 149) and was a pupil of Ayyub as-Sakhtiyani, (d. 131), both of whom are famous for their transmission of uncanonical variants.

Chapter 9: Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran (pp. 150-153)

-Arthur Jeffrey

There are perhaps a few invalid proclamations that have been interpolated into the Koran, but what is far more certain is that many authentic proclamations have been lost. Jeffrey gives the complete text of a chapter in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fada’il-al-Qru’an, folios 43 and 44, concerning chapters that have been lost from the Koran.

Abu ‘Ubaid al-Qasim . Sallam (154-244 AH) studied under renown scholars and himself became well known as a philologist, jurist and Koranic expert. His chapter contains a list of Hadith on the missing verses of the Koran. According to these Hadith:

• ‘Umar is recorded as saying that much of the Koran has disappeared.

• Ai’sha ways that sura 33 used to have 200 verses, but much of it has been lost.

• Ibn Ka’b says that Sura 33 had as many verses as sura 2 (i.e. at least 200 verses), and included the verses on stoning [NB: as the Sura 33 has 73 verses today.]

• ‘Uthman also refers to the missing verses on the stoning of adulterers (several different Hadith all report this).

• Ibn Ka’b and al-Khattab differed over whether S. xxxlii:6 (sic) was part of the Koran or not.

• Several people (Abu Waqid al-Laithi, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, Zaid b. Arqam, and Jabir b. ‘Abdallah) remember an aya about humans being greedy which is not now in the Koran.

• Ibn Abbas confesses to hearing things and not knowing if they were part of the Koran or not.

• Abi Ayyub b. Yunus reports a verse that he read in A’isha’s codex that is not now in the Koran, and adds that A’isha accused ‘Uthman of having altered the Koran.

• ‘ Adi b. ‘Adi comment on the existence an other missing verses, the previous existence of which was confirmed by Zaid ibn Thabit.

• ‘Umar questioned the loss of another verse, and was informed by ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Auf that “It dropped out among what dropped from the Koran.”

‘Ubaid concludes the chapter by asserting that these verses were all genuine and used to be recited during prayers, but they were not passed down by the savants because they were considered extra, similar to verses contained elsewhere in the Koran.

Chapter Ten: Textual Variations of the Koran (pp. 154-162)

-David Margoliouth

Orthodox Islam does not demand uniformity of the Koran. It permits 7-10 variant readings differing usually (but not always) in minutia.

Other (non-orthodox) variations can be attributed to the fact that Muhammad frequently changed his revelation and some of his followers might not have known what the abrogating version was. After his death it was a political necessity for ‘Uthman to standardise the text, and al-Hajjaj produced yet another recension at the end of the7th century.

For a long time there was confusion about what was Koran and what was not. Sometimes verses of poets were cited as words of Allah. Even the religious leaders weren’t always sure what the correct text was. For example, in one of his letters the Caliph Mansur grossly misquotes S. 12:38, relying on the word ‘Ishmael’ to prove his point, when the word is not even in the text. Significantly, neither Mubarrad nor Ibn Khaldun, who both reproduce this letter, notice the mistake. Even Bukhari, at the beginning of his Kitab al-Manaqib cites something as ‘revealed’ that was not in the Koran. These mistakes were made after a written existed; it’s scarcely credible that mistakes would not have crept in while the text was still transmitted orally.

Further confusion resulted from the lack of diacritical marks. For example, Hamza, who later helped invent point notation, confesses to having confused ‘la zaita fihil’ (no oil in it) with ‘la raiba (no doubt) because of the lack of points. (So the lack of pointing could quite dramatically alter meaning!) Eventually a system of pointing based on Aramaic was adopted, though the caliph Ma’mun (198-218 AH) is said to have forbidden the use of both diacritical and vowel marks. Variant traditions of pointing developed over time, usually with little difference to sense, but in some places the differences in pointing resulted in greatly different meanings.

Sometimes the textual variants look like deliberate attempts to amend the text (e.g. 24:16- did the pre-Islamic Arabs only worship inathan (females) or authanan (idols)? ). Sometimes the Readers used historical research to supplement grammatical studies in determining the authentic text. For example Ibraham was chosen over Ibrahim (which seems to be necessary for the rhyme.) Also, three different ways of vowelling sura 30:1 result in three different meanings. One awkward rendition was chosen because it fits history.

Part Three: THE SOURCES OF THE KORAN

Chapter Eleven: What Did Muhammad Borrow From Judaism? (pp. 165-226)

-Abraham Geiger

THOUGHTS BELONGING TO JUDAISM WHICH HAVE PASSED OVER INTO THE KORAN?

Conceptions Borrowed from Judaism (pp. 166-172)

---

Tabut – arkSakinat– the presence of GodTaurat – lawTaghut – errorJannatu’Adn – paradiseMa’un – refugeJahannam – hellMasanil – repetitionAhbar – teacherRabani – teacherDarasa – studying scripture so as to force a far-fetched meaning from the textFurquan – deliverance, redemption (used this way in S. 8:42, 2:181, also misused as ‘revelation’_Sabt – SabbathMalakut – government

---

That these 14 words of Hebrew origin are used in the Koran suggests that ideas about divine guidance, revelation, and judgement after death were all borrowed from Judaism by Islam. Otherwise why wouldn’t Arabic words have been used?

Views borrowed from Judaism (pp. 172-185)

1. Doctrinal views

   1. Unity of God

   2. Creation – 6 days, 7 heavens (asserted in Chagiga, also the ‘7 paths’ is used in the Talmud), 7 hells – including 7 gates and trees at the gates

   3. Mode of Revelation

   4. Retribution, including the last judgement and Resurrection – e.g. linkage of resurrection and judgement, evil state of the world before the Messiah/Mahdi, the war between Gog and Magog, a person’s body will testify against them (e.g. S. 24:24), idols will be cast into hellfire, the wicked will be allowed to prosper so as to increase their iniquity. 1000 years is like a day to the Lord, the resurrected person will appear in the clothes in which he is buried

   5. Doctrine of spirits – similar beliefs regarding angels and demons (djinn). Though Islam has a much more earthy idea of paradise, some similarities remain.

2. Moral and Legal Rules

   1. Prayer

      • Matches the rabbis’ positions for prayer (standing, sitting, reclining) see Sura 10:13

      • shorten prayer in war

      • prayer forbidden to the drunken

      • prayer must be vocalised by not said loudly

      • Daybreak discerned by the ability to distinguish a blue (black) from a white thread

   2. Woman

      • divorced woman waits three months before remarriage

      • suckling time is two years

      • same limits on intermarriage

3. Views of LifeDeath with the righteous is to be prized – S. 3:191 and Num. 23:10Full understanding at 40 years – S. 46:14 and Aboth 5:21Interceding effectively leads to reward – S. 4:87 and Baba Kamma 92At death family and goods don’t follow a person, only works do – Sunna 689 and Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 34

Stories Borrowed from Judaism (pp. 185-223)

We can assume that Muhammad acquired the Old Testament narratives from the Jews, because nothing is included that would be of particular interest to Christians.

Patriarchs (pp. 187-204)

1. From Adam to Noah

   • Creation – Adam is wiser than the angels are because he could name the animals (S. 2:28-32) c.f. Midrash Rabbah on Numbers para. 19, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis para. 8 and 17, and Sanhedrin 38

   • The story of Satan refusing to worship Adam (S. 7:10-18; 17:63-68, 18:48, 20:115, 38:71-86) was explicitly rejected by the Jews. c.f. Midrash Rabbah on Genesis para. 8

   • Cain and Abel – sacrifice and murder.Koran – raven tells Cain how to bury the body (S. 5:31)Jews – raven tells parents how to bury body (Pirke Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 21)Koran – slaying a soul is like slaying all mankind (S. 5:35) this is taken out of context from Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5

   • Idris (Enoch) – taken to Paradise after death and raised to life again. c.f. S. 19:58 with Gen. 5:24 and Tract Dereen Erez (cited in Midrash Yalku Ch. 42)

2. From Noah to Abraham

   • Angels living on earth, lusting after women and dividing marriages. S. 2:96 – alludes to Mdr. Abhkhir (quoted in Midr. Yalkut Ch. 44)

   • Noah – role as teacher and seer and the flood of hot water both match rabbinical ideas. [Compare S. 7:57-63, 10:72-75, 11:27-50, 22:43, 23:23-32, 25:39, 26:105-121, 29:13-14, 37:73-81, 54:9-18, 71:1ff with Sanhedrin 108, and S. 11:40 with Midrash Tanchuma, Section Noah, S. 11:42, 23:27 with Rosh Hashanan 162.] Noah’s words are indistinguishable from Muhammad’s (or Gabriel/Allah).

3. Abraham to Moses

   • Abraham – Archetypal prophet, friend of God, lived in temple, wrote books. Conflict over idols lead to danger of being burned alive but he was rescued by God. (Compare S. 2:60, 21:69-74, 29:23-27; 37:95-99 with Midrash Rabba on Genesis para. 38). So strong is Muhammad’s identification with Abraham that he places words in Abraham’s mouth that are not suitable to anyone outside Muhammad’s context (e.g. S. 24:88, 29:17-23)

   • Joseph is the subject of almost all of the 12th sura. Additions to the Biblical story are derived from Jewish legends. (e.g. Joseph is warned away from Potiphar’s wife in a dream (s. 12:24, Sotah 6:2), Egyptian women cut their hands because of Joseph’s beauty (S. 12:31, compare with references in Midrash Yalkut to ‘The Great Chronicle’.)

Moses and His Time (pp. 201-216)

This is very similar to the Biblical account, but with some additions from Jewish fables and some errors.

• The infant Moses refused the breast of Egyptian women (S. 28:11, Sotah 12,2)

• Pharaoh claims divinity (S. 26:28, 28:38, Midrash Rabba on Exodus para. 5)

• Pharaoh eventually repents (S. 10:90ff, Pirke Rabbi Eliezar section 43)

• God threatens to overturn the mountain onto the Israelites (S. 2:60, 87; 7:170, Abodah Zerah 2:2)

• There is a confusion as to the exact number of plagues – is it 5 (S. 7:130) or 9 (S. 17:103; 27:12)

• Haman (S. 28:5,7,38; 29:38; 28:38) and Korah (S. 29:38; 40:25) are thought to be advisors to Pharaoh.

• Miriam the sister of Aaron is also thought to be the mother of Jesus (S. 3:30ff, 29:29, 46:12)

The Kings Who Ruled Over Undivided Israel (pp. 216-220)

Very few particulars are given about Saul or David. Solomon is discussed in much more detail. The story about the Queen of Sheba (S. 27:20-46) is virtually identical to the 2nd Targum on the Book of Esther.

Holy Men After the Time of Solomon (pp. 220-223)

Elijah, Jonah, Job, Shadrach, Mishach, Abednego (not by name), Ezra, Elisha

Conclusion: Muhammad borrowed a great deal from Judaism – both scripture and legend. He freely altered what he heard. ‘Conceptions, matters of creed, views of morality, and of life in general, and more especially matters of history and traditions, have actually passed over from Judaism into the Koran.’ (p. 222)

Appendix: Statements in the Koran Hostile to Judaism (pp. 223-226)

Muhammad’s aim was to bring about the union between all religions, but Judaism, with its host of laws, stood in his way. So he made a break with the Jews, declaring them enemies (S. 5:85) who killed the prophets (S. 2:58, 5:74), thought themselves favoured by God (S. 5:21) believed they alone would enter paradise (S. 2:88, 62:6), held Ezra to be the son of God (S. 9:30), trusted in the intercession of their predecessors (2:128, 135), and perverted the Bible (S. 2:73). To emphasise this break he changed some of the Jewish traditions. For example: (1) Supper precedes prayer (sunna 97ff) in opposition to the Talmud’s adamant stance that prayer has priority, (2) Sex is permitted during Ramadan. The Talmud forbids it on the evening of fasts. Also, men may only remarry the wives they have divorced if the woman has first married and divorced someone else (S. 2:230). This is in direct opposition to the Bible, (3) Most of the Jewish dietary regulations are removed, (4) Muhammad cites ‘eye for eye’ and rebukes the Jews for replacing it with the payment of money (S. 5:49).

Chapter Twelve: The Sources of Islam (pp. 227-292)

-W. St. Clair-Tisdall

Ch. I – Views of Muslim Divines as to the sources from which Islam sprang (232)

The Koran is direct from heaven from God via Gabriel to Muhammad. God is the only ‘source’ of Islam.

Ch. II – Certain Doctrines and Practices of the Arabs in the “Days of Ignorance” Maintained in Islam (pp. 232-236)

Islam retains much from pre-Islamic Arabia including Allah, the name for God. The concept of monotheism did exist in the jahiliyya – even the pagans conceived of a supreme God that ruled over all the others. There are hints that some idolatry would remain (e.g. the Satanic verses). The Ka’ba was the masjid of many tribes as early as 60 BC, and the pagans first had the tradition of kissing the black stone. Two passages from the Sabaa Mu’allaqat of Imra’ul Qays are quoted in the Koran (S. 54:1, 29:31&46, 37:69, 21:96, 93:1). There is also a hadith where Imra’ul mocks Fatima because her father is plagiarising him and claiming to be quoting revelation.

Ch. III – How Far Some of the Doctrines and Histories in the Koran and Tradition were taken from Jewish Commentators, and Some Religious customs from the Sabaeans (pp. 236-257)

Sabeans – a religious group now disappeared. Among the little known about them we see the following customs:

• 7 daily prayers, 5 of them at the same times as those chosen by Muhammad

• prayed for the dead

• fasted 30 days from night to sunrise

• observed Eed from the setting of 5 starts

• venerated the Ka’ba

Jews – Three important tribes lived in the vicinity of Medina: Bani Quraiza, Qainuqa’a, and Nadhir.

1. Cain and Abel – S. 5:30-35, compare with the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah, the Targum of Jerusalem. Specifically there are parallels with Pirke Rabbi Eleazer(the story of the raven teaching people how to bury), and with Mishnah Sanhedrin (the commentary about the shedding of blood).

2. Abraham saved from Nimrood’s fire – (S. 2:260, 6:74-84, 21:52-72, 19:42-50, 26:69-79, 29:15,16; 37:81-95, 43:25-27, 60:4) taken from Midrash Rabbah (Gen. 15:7). The parallels are especially clear when the relevant hadith are consulted. The only significant difference is that in the Koran Abraham’s father is called Azar, not Terah, but Eusebius tells us that this is similar to the name used in Syria. This Jewish commentary was the result of a mistaken translation of ‘Ur’, which means ‘city’ in Babylonian, but was apparently mistaken for the word ‘Or’ meaning fire, so the commentator (Jonathan ben Uzziah) thought Abraham had been delivered out the ‘fiery oven’ of the Chaldeans.

3. Visit of the Queen of Saba (Sheba) to Solomon (S. 21:17ff) is taken from the 2nd Targum of the Book of Esther

4. Harut and Marut (S. 2:96, especially Araish al-Majalis – the commentary on that ayat) similar to several accounts in the Talmud, especially Midrash Yalkut. The stories are the same except for the manes of the angels. The manes in the Koran are the same as those of two goddesses worshipped in Armenia.

5. A few other things taken by Islam from the Jews

   • ‘Sinai overhead’ – S. 2:172 and Abodah Sarah

   • The golden calf lowing – s. 2:90 and Pirke Rabbi Eleazer

   • Also, the Koran uses the word ‘Sameri’ for the man who built the golden calf – but Samaritans didn’t exist until 400 years after Moses.

6. A few other Jewish Matters

   • Many words in the Koran are not Arabic but Hebrew, Chaldaean, Syriac, etc…

   • The concept of 7heavens and 7 hells are in the Jewish books Hagigah and Zohar (S. 15:44, 17:46)

   • God’s throne is above the waters (S. 11:9) from the Jewish Rashi

   • The angel Malik rules over Jehennam – the names is taken from Molech, the ruler of fire in pagan Palestine.

   • There is a wall or partition separating heaven and hell (S. 7:44) – a variety of places in the Jewish Midrash.

7. Religious usages of Islam taken from the Jews

   • Daybreak begins when you can distinguish a white from a black(Islam)/blue(Jewish) thread (S. 2:83, Mishnah Berakhoth)

   • S. 21:105 is a quotation of Psalm 37:11. How could the Koran quote the Psalms unless it came after them, therefore either the Psalms must be eternal as well, or the Koran is not.

   • The Koran is preserved on heavenly tablets (S. 85:21-22) – similar to the stone tablets of the decalogue (Deut. 10:1-5) which Jewish legend had embellished to include the entire Torah, Writings, Prophets, Mishnah, and the Gemara (Rabbi Simeon).

Ch. IV – On the Belief that Much of the Koran is Derived from the Tales of Heretical Christian Sects

Many heretics were expelled from the Roman Empire and migrated to Arabic before the time of Muhammad.

1. The Seven Sleepers, or Companions of the Cave (S. 18:8-26) is a story of Greek origin found in a Latin work of Gregory of Tours (‘Story of Martyrs’ 1:95) and was recognised by Christians as pious fiction.

2. The History of Mary (S. 19:16-31, 66:12, 3:31-32&37-42, 25:37). Mary is said to be the sister of Aaron, the daughter of Imran (Hebrew Amran the father of Moses), and the mother of Jesus. The hadith tell us that Mary’s mother was an aged, barren woman who promised to give her child to the temple if God gave it to her (from the Protevangelium of James the Less). The hadith also explain that the casting of rods mentioned in the Koran refers to when 6 priests were vying for who would raise Mary. They threw their rods into the river, only Zaccharias’ rod floated (from the History of our Holy Father the Aged, the Carpenter (Joseph), and Arabic apocryphal book). Mary was denounced as an adulteress but pleaded her innocence (from Protevangelium a Coptic book on the Virgin Mary), and gave birth under a palm tree that aided her (from History of the Nativity of Mary and the Saviour’s Infancy)

3. The Childhood of Jesus – Jesus spoke from the cradle and created birds of clay which he then turned to life (S. 3:41-43, 5:119), from The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite and The Gospel of the Infancy Ch. 1, 36, 46. Jesus was not really crucified (s. 4:156) in accordance with the heretic Basilides (quoted by Iraneus). The Koran erroneously thinks that the Trinity consists of father, mother, and son (s. 4:169, 5:77).

4. Some other stories from Christian or heretical writers: In the hadith (Quissas al-Anbial) God sends angels together dust to create Adam and Azrael brings it from every quarter (Ibn Athir via Abdul Feda). This is from the heretic Marconion who argued that it was an angel (the ‘God of the law’) who created people, not the true God. The balance of good and bad deeds (S. 42:16, 101:5-6) is from the ‘Testament of Abraham’ and from the Egyptian ‘Book of the dead.’ Two New Testament verses are alluded to: (a) camel through the eye of a needle (S. 7:38, Mt. 19:24), God has prepared for the righteous things that eyes have not seen nor ears heard (Abu Hureira quoting the prophet in Mishkat of the Prophet, 1 Cor. 2:9).

Ch. V – Some Things in the Koran and Tradition Derived from Ancient Zoroastrian and Hindu Beliefs (pp. 275-286)

Arabian and Greek historians tell us that much of the Arabian peninsula was under Persian rule before and during Muhammad’s life. Ibn Hisham tells us that the stories of Rustem, Isfandiyar and ancient Persia were told in Medina and the Quraish used to compare them with tales in the Koran (e.g. the tales told by Nadhr, son of al-Harith).

1. Ascent (Miraj) of the prophet (S. 17:1) – There is a great variation in interpretation. Ibn Ishaq quotes A’isha and the prophet as saying this was an out of body journey. Muhyiad-Din [ibn al-‘Arabi] agrees. But Ibn Ishaq also quotes the prophet saying that it was a literal journey. Cotada relates the prophet saying that it was a literal journey into the 7th heaven. In a Zorastrian story the Magi send one of their number into heaven to get a message from God (Ormazd) (from a Pahlavi book Arta Viraf Namak – 400 B.H.) Also, the ‘Testament of Abraham’ tells of Abraham being taken up to heaven in a chariot.

2. Paradise – filled with houris (S. 55:72, 56:22) – like the ‘paries’ in Zorastrianism. The words ‘houry’, ‘djinn’, and ‘bihist’ (Paradise) are derived from Avesta or Pahlavi sources. The ‘youths of pleasure’ (ghilunan) are also in Hindu tales. The name of the Angel of death is taken from the Jews (in Hebrew two names are given, Sammael and Azrael, the latter was borrowed by Islam), but the concept of the angel killing those in hell was taken from Zoroastrianism.

3. Azazil coming from hell – in the Muslim traditions he worshiped God 1000 years in each of the 7 heavens before reaching earth. Then he sat 3000 years by the gates of paradise trying to tempt Adam and Eve and destroy creation. This is very similar to the Zoroastrian tale regarding their devil (Ahriman) in the book Victory of God. The peacock agreed to let Iblis into Paradise in exchange for a prayer with magical qualities (the Bundahishnih) – an association also noted by the Zoroastrians (Eznik in his book Against Heresies).

4. The light of Muhammad was the first created thing (Qissas al-Anbia, Rauzat al Ahbab). The light was divided into 4, then each into 4. Muhammad was the first of the first divisions of light. This light was then placed on Adam and descended to the best descendent. This is virtually identical to the Zoroastrian view which described 4 divisions of light (the Minukhirad, Desatir-i Asmani, Yesht 19:31-37); the light was placed on the first man (Jamshid) and passed to his greatest descendent.

5. The Bridge Sirat is a concept from Dinkart, but it is named Chinavad by the Zoroastrians.

6. The concept that each prophet predicts the next prophet is from Desatir-i Asmani where each Zoroastrian prophet predicts the next one. Also, the openings of these books (i.e. the Desatir-i Asmani) is “In the name of God, the Giver of gifts, the Beneficent’ which is similar to the opening of all the Suras ‘In the name of God the Merciful, the Gracious.’

7. How could Muhammad have learned these stories? Rauzat al-Ahbab tells us that the prophet used to talk to people from all over the place. Al-Kindi accuses the Koran of including foolish old-wives tales. Also, in Sirat-Rasul we learn of the Persian, Salman, who advised Muhammad regarding the battle of the trench and was accused of helping compose the Koran. (The Koran mentions him, though not by name, in S. 16:105).

Ch. VI – The Hanefites: Their Influence on Muhammad and On His Teaching (pp. 286-292)

The influence of the Hanefites (Arab monotheists) on Muhammad is most reliably described by Ibn Hisham quoting Ibn Ishaq’a Sirat. Six Hanefites are mentioned by name – Abu Amir (Medina), ‘Ummeya (Tayif), Waraqa (became a Christian), ‘Ubaidallah (became a Muslim, moved to Abyssiniya and gave up Islam for Christianity), ‘Uthman, Zaid (banished from Mecca, lived on Mt. Hira where Muhammad went to meditate) (the latter four were from Mecca).

Conclusion – All this said, the variety of sources does not mean than Muhammad had no role in creating Islam. But we see that as circumstances in his life changed, so too did his revelation. For example, s. 22:44 (pre-Hegira) permission is given to fight when persecuted, but in s. 2:212-214) war is commanded even during the sacred months (post-Hegira). Then again after the Banu Quraiza are conquered comes s. 5:37 commanding dire punishments for anyone who opposes Muhammad. Towards the end of Muhammad’s life the sacred months come back into favour (s. 9:2,29), but Muslims are also commanded to kill idolaters wherever they may find them, (even if they are not fighting against Islam!), because they do not profess the true religion.

Chapter Thirteen: The Jewish Foundation of Islam (pp. 293-348)

-Charles Cutler Torrey

Allah and Islam (pp. 293-330)

Muhammad was trying to create a religious history for the Arabs, but Arabian religious history did not provide many sources for him. What references there are occur mainly in the Meccan period. He refers to Hud, the prophet of the people ‘Ad; Salih, the prophet of the Thamud; and Shu’aib, prophet of Midian. All pagan customs not directly involving idolatry were preserved in Islam, e.g. the rituals of the Haj.

After exhausting the Arabian possibilities Muhammad began to rely on Jewish material because it was well-known and would give the new religion greater credibility in the wider world. In addition to apocryphal works, Muhammad must have been familiar with the canonical Bible, especially the Torah. He only knows the prophets with interesting stories and is therefore ignorant of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and all the minor prophets except Jonah. From popular tales the Arabs knew that the Jews felt that they had descended from a common ancestor, Abraham, via Isma’il and Isaac respectively. Hagar is not mentioned in the Koran. The Koran says that they built the Ka’ba (though later Muslim doctrine says that Adam built it and Abraham cleansed it of idols). It is possible that the ‘hanifs’ (Arab monotheists following the religion of Abraham) are an invention of later Islam. The story of Iblis (or Shaitan) prostrating himself before Adam (38:73-77) may not refer to worship as there is a possible Jewish source for this story in Sanhedrin 596 and Mir. Rabba 8. Shu’aib is probably the Biblical Jethro. ‘Uzair is Ezra, and the Jews are accused of declaring him to be the son of God. Idris is also Ezra (the Greek name). Hebrew chronology is very week in the Koran, e.g. Muhammad seems to associate Moses near to Jesus (as Moses’ sister is also Jesus’ mother).

‘Isa ibn Maryam is Jesus. Very little is known about him by Muhammad and there are no uniquely Christian doctrines in the Koran. The little that was known about Jesus came from (1) the facts and fancies that were spread throughout all Arabia, and (2) a little via the Jews. The name ‘Isa is itself inappropriate, it should be Yeshu in Arabic. Either it was given by the Jews (associating Jesus with their ancient enemy Esau) or it is a corruption of the Syriac name (Isho). In the Koran itself Jesus doesn’t have a position higher than Abraham, Moses, or David. This elevation occurred later in the caliphate when the Arabs had closer contacts with Christians. A few Christian terms (e.g. Messiah, Spirit) work their way into the Koran without any real understanding of what they mean. It was probably the migration to Abyssinia that increased Muhammad’s interest in the Christian stories. Rudolph and Ahrens argue that if Muhammad had learned about Jesus from the Jews then he would have ignored or insulted him. But many Jews appreciated Jesus as a teacher while rejecting Christian dogmas. Also, Muhammad was aware of the large Christian empire, so he would have distrusted anyone who insulted Jesus. The only information about Christ in the Koran is the kind of stuff that wouldn’t bother the Jews. The Koran’s view of Jesus’ mission is: (1) confirm the true doctrine of the Torah, (2) preach monotheism, (3) warn against new sects. S. 15:1-15 is a literary connection with the New Testament (Lk. 1:5-25, 57-66). This is the story of Zechariah and John was probably related by a learned man but not a Christian as it was isolated from any association with Jesus’ birth. In summary, there is nothing particularly Christian about Jesus in the Koran.

Torrey now digresses to a discussion of the composite Meccan suras, following the traditional Muslim accounts closely. He points out the implausibility of Meccan and Medinan verses being intermingled if in fact the prophet was publicly reciting his revelations and having them memorised by his followers as they were revealed. Would it not cause confusion (or scepticism) to be continually inserting new material into previously revealed suras? The traditional commentators frequently neglect the Jewish population in Mecca that may have been the target of some ayat in the Meccan suras. In fact, Muhammad’s personal contact with Jews was longer and closer pre-Hijra than post-Hijra. Why would we assume that there was no hostility to Muhammad from the Meccan Jews? And, after the eviction or butchery of the yews in Yathrib, it’s scarcely surprising that the Jews quickly left Mecca. Torrey recommends considering the Meccan suras to be complete without interpolations unless there is unmistakable proof to the contrary. Doing this decreases the variation in style and vocabulary assumed to exist between the two periods. [NB: Basically he is arguing for literary criticism instead of form criticism.]

‘The origin of the term Islam’ (pp. 327-330)

Traditionally ‘Islam’ is said to mean ‘submission’, especially to Allah. But, this is not the normal meaning one would expect of the 4th stem of the verb ‘salima’. It is especially strange since ‘submission’ is not a prominent feature of Muhammad or his religion nor especially emphasised in the Koran. It is, however, an important attribute of Abraham, especially in his potential sacrifice of Ishmael.

The Narratives of the Koran (pp. 330-348)

Muhammad’s use of stories about prophets served two functions: (1) it provided a clear connection with the previous ‘religions of the book’, and (2) it showed his countrymen that his religion had been preached before and those who rejected it were punished. But, Muhammad’s storytelling was boring and he was mocked by an-Nadr ibn al-Harith who insisted that his own tales of Persian kings were far more interesting. (After the battle of Badr the prophet had his revenge and slew an-Nadr.) Muhammad himself appreciated a good story and incorporated pretty bits of folk tale into the Koran where he could. However, this provided a dilemma for Muhammad. If he merely reproduced tales he would be accused of plagiarism, but if he changed them he would be accused of falsifying. He couldn’t just invent new stories, for his imagination was vivid but not creative. All of his characters talk the same way and he has very little sense of action. His solution was to repeat the stories he had learned, but in fragments, using introductory words which imply that he could tell more if he chose (e.g. ‘and when…’, ‘and then there was that time…’)

The story of Joseph is the most complete narrative in the Koran, but it is still annoyingly short in detail. Why were the women given knives? What does the banquet have to do with anything? Why was Joseph put in prison after Potipher’s wife confessed? Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (27:16-45) is taken directly from the Haggada (see above pp. 181-186). Jonah (37:139-148) is a condensation of the Biblical account, but the name given is based on the Greek rather than Hebrew form. Saul and Goliath (‘Talut’ and ‘Jalut’) is a confusion of the story of Gideon (Jdg. 7:47) with that of David and Goliath. The story of Moses (s. 28:2-46) is a summary of most of Ex. 1-4, though Muhammad does not associate Moses with the Israelites. Haman is believed to be Pharaoh’s vizier (also in s. 29 and 40). As in the Talmud (Sotah 126) the baby Moses refuses to suckle at an Egyptian breast. The marriage of Moses in Midian is loosely patterned after Jacob and Rachael; and a tower (virtually identical to the tower of Babel) is built by Pharaoh to reach Allah. This narrative illustrates the freedom which Muhammad felt as a prophet to alter the Biblical tradition.

Sura 18 is unusual because the stories in it are not from the Bible or Rabbinic literature, and Muhammad makes not mention to it elsewhere in the Koran.

1. The seven sleepers is from the legend of 7 Christian youths who fled from Ephasus to the mountains to escape the persecution of Decius (250 AD). Though a Christian tale it seems to have come to Muhammad via the Jews for several reasons (a) The hadith say that the Jews of Mecca were especially interested in this story (See Baidawi on vs. 23), (b) the rest of the stories in the chapter seem to have come via a Jewish rescension, and (c) internal evidence points to verse 18, which mentions the importance of ‘clean’ food, a concept important to Jews, not to Christians. There is nothing uniquely Christian about this tale. It could just as easily have been Israelite youths. Apparently the legend existed in different forms and Muhammad was challenged to know what was the correct number of youths. The Koran diffuses the challenge by insisting that only God knows the right answer.

2. The next story is a common parable of a god-fearing poor man vs. an arrogant, impious rich man. The latter is punished.

3. Then we have the story of Moses searching for the fountain of life which is the same as an episode from the legend of Alexander the Great with the name changed. This legend has roots in the Gilgamesh epic.

4. Finally, the narrative of the ‘Two-horned’ hero is again from Alexander the Great. He journey’s to the place of the setting sun and to the place of its rising, as an emissary of God. He is protected against Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Majuj in the Koran) and Alexander builds a great wall. These fantasies echo those found in the Haggada, which reinforces the possibility of a Jewish source for the entire sura, likely a single document.

So, the sources of the Koran used by Muhammad include:

1. Biblical narrative with alteration

2. Jewish Haggada, well preserved

3. A small amount of ultimately Christian material from Aramaic.

4. Legends common to world literature introduced via the Jews at Mecca.

All of these were altered and rearranged for the purpose of providing his listeners with an Arabian revelation with enhanced credibility because it could be seen as part of a universal divine revelation.

Part Four: MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE KORAN

Chapter Fourteen: Literary Analysis of Koran, Tafsir, and Sira: The methodologies of John Wansbrough (pp. 351-363)

-Andrew Rippin

Christianity and Judaism are both seen as religions rooted in history. ‘What really happened’ is seen as an important criteria for determining the truth or falsehood of the religion. It assumes that the sources available to us contain discernible historical data which enable us to achieve positive historical results.

Modern scholarship of Islam has the same desire to achieve positive results, but the literary qualities of the available sources are often overlooked. Neutral testimony, archaeological data, datable documents, and evidence from external sources, are profoundly lacking. The few external sources that we have (as recounted by Crone and Cook in Hagarism) have questionable authenticity and are based on polemic. Internal sources are recorded two centuries after the event, influenced by the intervening years and intended to provide a ‘salvation history’ legitimising the faith and the scripture of Islam. For example, the stories known as asbab al-nazul (occasions of revelation) are significant not for their historical value but for their exegetical value – they provide a framework for interpretation of the Koran. Yet these basic literary facts are often ignored by historians.

The Nature of the Sources

John Wansbrough (SOAS) argues for a critical literary assessment of the sources so as to avoid the inherent theological view of history. His two major books are Qur’anic Studies: Sources and Methods of Historical Interpretation, dealing with “the formation of the Koran along with the witness of exegetical writings (tafsir) to that formation., and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, examining the traditional biographies of Muhammad to see “the theological elaboration of Islam as a religious community” especially “questions of authority, identity, and epistemology.” [pg. 354] Wansbrough’s basic methodology is to ask the question: What is the evidence that the stories are accurate regarding the formation of the scripture and the community? The earliest non-Islamic sources testifying to the Koran are the 2nd/8th century. Islamic sources (excluding those whose primary purpose was defending the canon) suggest that the Koran itself was not totally fixed until the 3rd/9th century. Manuscript evidence doesn’t allow for much earlier dating.

Many scholars ask why they should not trust Islamic sources. In answer Wansbrough, rather than pointing to contradictions between and within them (like John Burton, The Collection of the Koran), argues that “the entire corpus of early Islamic documentation must be viewed as ‘salvation history.’ What the Koran is trying to evidence, what tafsir, sira, and theological writings are trying to explicate, is how the sequence of worldly events centred on the time of Muhammad was directed by God. All the components of Islamic salvation history are meant to witness the same point of faith, namely, an understanding of history that sees God’s role in directing the affairs of humankind.” [pp. 354-355] Salvation history is not attempting to describe what really happened, it is attempt to describe the relationship between God and men and vice versa. (Wansbrough does not use ‘salvation’ with it’s Christian connotations, i.e. the saving of an individual soul from damnation, but in a more general literary sense that could just as easily be called ‘sacred’ history.)

This concept has been fully developed within biblical and Mishnaic studies by the likes of Bultmann and Neusner. “All such works start from the proposition that the literary records of salvation history, although presenting themselves as being contemporary with the events they describe, actually belong to a period well after such events, which suggests that they have been written according to later points of view in order to fit the purposes of that later time… The records we have are the existential records of the thought and faith of later generations.” [pp. 355-356] Goldziher and Schact recognised that many of the sayings attributed to the prophet were invented to settle legal and doctrinal disputes in later generations. However most scholars since Schact have tended to ignore the implications of his work. Wansbrough argues that we do not (and probably cannot) know what ‘really happened’. Literary analysis can only tell us about the disputes of later generations. The whole point of Islamic salvation history is to adapt Judeo-Christian religious themes for the formulation of an Arabian religious identity. The Koran itself demands that it be placed within a Judeo-Christian context (e.g. the line of prophets, sequence of scriptures, common narratives). “This notion of extrapolation is, in a sense, the methodological presupposition that Wansbrough sets out to prove within his books by posing the question: If we assume this, does the data fit? At the same time he poses the question: What additional evidence appears in the process of the analysis to corroborate the presupposition and to define it more clearly?” [pg. 357] Attacking the presupposition misses the entire point To evaluate his work one must first weigh the evidence and the conclusions proposed.

Wansbrough’s Approach to the Sources (pp. 358-363)

Wansbrough argues that modern studies of the Koran, even those which purport to use modern biblical methodologies (e.g. Richard Bell), acquiesce to the traditional interpretation of the data. Major reasons for this include: (1) increasing specialisation means that there are fewer scholars capable of interacting with the wide variety of necessary languages and religions. Most think that a knowledge of Arabic and 7th century Arabia is sufficient. (2) The irenic approach (e.g. Charles Adams), aimed at appreciation of Islamic religiousness, avoids the basic question ‘How do we know?’

In his analysis of the basic character of the Koran Wansbrough identifies four major motifs common to monotheistic imagery: divine retribution, sign, exile, and covenant. He points out that the Koran is written in a ‘referential’ style, presupposing detailed audience knowledge of the Judeo-Christian traditions which can be alluded to with only a few words without losing meaning (similar to Talmudic references to the Torah). Only as ‘Islam’ moved out of the Arabian peninsula and obtained a fixed identity (based on political structure) does the Koran become detached from its original intellectual environment and require explanation – i.e. the tafsir and sira. The similarities between the Koran and Qumram literature show a “similar process of biblical-textual elaboration and adaptation to sectarian purposes.” [pp. 360] So the Koran is a composite of referential passages developed on the context of Judeo-Christian sectarian polemics joined together through a variety of literary and narrative conventions. Textual stability goes hand-in-hand with canonisation and was not really feasible until political power was well established; “thus the end of the 2nd/8th century becomes a likely historical moment for the gathering together of oral tradition and liturgical elements leading to the actual concept “Islam.” [pg. 361] This coincides with the rise of literary Arabic. Wansbrough analyses Koranic tafsir into five genres – haggadic, halakhic, masoretic, rhetorical, and allegorical – and then shows a chronological development of increasing concern with the textual integrity of the Koran and then with its use as scripture. The sira have some exegetical function, but are more important in providing a narrative of the Islamic version of salvation history. Much of the contents of the sira fit nicely as elaborations of 23 well-known polemical motifs traditional to the Near Eastern sectarian milieu.

Critics have largely accused Wansbrough of creating a method that determines results rather than allowing material determining results. However, Rippin points out that the traditional theologico-historical methods are just as likely to condition results. What is needed is for scholars to become more aware of the limitations of their own methods and to be prepared to considered the validity of other methods. A closer examination of the basic data is necessary to determine the validity and implications of Wansbrough’s method.

The Compilation of the Text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia Dispute

Antoin MacRuaidh

1. Introduction

In recent years, in various countries, there have been public disputations between Christians and Muslims about the veracity of their respective holy books. At the time of writing there is an ongoing heated dispute taking place on the inter-net on this subject, and one issue being raised by some Christians is the question of the compilation of the Qur’an. A cursory examination on the literature on both sides demonstrates that the issue raises intense emotions, and sometimes both sides can express themselves in terms which do not promote good communal relations, or useful academic dialogue. It is not my purpose in this paper to raise questions about the veracity or otherwise of the contemporary edition of the Qur’an. Neither is it my intention to provoke or intensify hostilities between the Sunni and Shia about the integrity of the ‘Uthmanic edition of the Qur’an. Rather, I hope to show how the different Muslim hypotheses about the compilation of the Qur’an, and the Sunni-Shia dispute therein, help to explain the attitudes of Muslims to the Christian concept of inspiration, text and canon. After examining the history and nature of Qur’anic compilation and the sectarian controversy thereof, we can see that to some extent the accusations of Muslim polemicists about the Bible reflect an internal dispute within Islam about its own sacred Scripture. With this in mind, I have largely ignored the positions of Orientalist and other scholars who have engaged in ‘The Quest for the Historical Qur’an‘ and have questioned the veracity of the ‘Uthmanic edition of the text. Instead, I have been guided by what Muslims themselves say about its compilation.

This brings us back to the point I made in my previous paper, The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures, that Muslims view the Bible through the lens of the Qur’an, and in their estimation the holy book of Islam sets the pattern for the form and content of an inspired Scripture. Insofar as the average Muslim is familiar with the concept of canonicity, he naturally assumes that what was true of the compilation of his own scripture is equally true of other sacred writings, at least those mentioned in the Qur’an. Nor is this a mere personal prejudice. If the ‘previous Books’ are true revelations from God, sent down from ‘the Mother of the Book’, a Muslim will believe that given the collegiality of the prophets and thus their Scriptures, the process which marked the compilation of the Qur’an must be a reflection of that procedure which characterised the collation of the Books of Moses, David and Jesus. If this is not the case, then, naturally, Muslim suspicions are aroused. Ironically, as we shall see, the actions Caliph ‘Uthman took to canonise the text assembled by Zaid ibn Thabit have influenced Muslim opinion on the corruption of the Biblical text and canon. It can be seen that on this issue, textual history and psychology meet. On the other hand, the position that oral tradition played in preserving the Qur’anic text presents us with an opportunity to explain to our Muslim friends the similar role it performed in the Biblical revelation.

2. Origins and Structure of the Qur’an

2.1 The Commencement of Revelation

The Qur’an celebrates the event of the commencement of revelation in its reference to Laylat al-Qadr, ‘the Night of Power’, during the month of Ramadan when the portion of the Tablet descended to the ‘House of Protection’ in the lowest of the seven heavens. The Qur’an claims to have been supernaturally revealed by angelic spirits on this night. Throughout history, as necessity arose, aspects of the eternal Tablet were revealed to the Prophets through Gabriel; the Qur’an is the culmination of these revelations. In the same fashion, it was revealed to Muhammad in Arabic by the angel Gabriel over a period of twenty-two to twenty-three years. The fact that the Qur’an as a whole was not revealed immediately demonstrates that in many cases it is responding to historical events in the career of Muhammad, and helps to explain the phenomenon of abrogated verses.

The hadith literature records the advent of revelation to Muhammad, and his reaction of terror, the result of fearing that he had become mad or possessed. Insanity was often associated with possession by the jinn, and so it is interesting to note Surahs 15:6 and 68:2 in this respect which answer the accusations of the pagans as to his condition. There is nothing comparable in Christian concepts of inspiration to the physical grip of the angel in imparting revelation to Muhammad, and this again points to the passive character of revelation in Islam. It is interesting to note that there was an early Christian association with Muhammad at this point, and that the role that the Christian believer played was crucial in confirming to Muhammad the truth of his revelation. After this, revelation ceased for a period, and when it resumed, it was once again through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel. At first, the reaction of Muhammad to the angelic visitation was once again to be afraid. Inspiration thereafter continued throughout the remainder of his life, and a large number of revelations came to Muhammad just before his death. The last revelation was 2:281 (although some say it was v282, v278, or all three). Others say it was 5:4. The Hadith literature offer support to either Surah Tawbah or Surah Nasr.

2.2 The Place of Oral Tradition

We can see from this that there was not a simple, single event which disclosed the entire Muslim holy book, and that given that most revelation came not long before his passing, it follows that there was not an entire, completed document of the Qur’an at the death of Muhammad. However, as Muslims often protest, this does not necessarily mean that the Qur’an as it stands is unreliable. Oral tradition and memorization have long been adequately practised by Oriental peoples of all faiths, and has been frequently demonstrated to be dependable. Muslims have long placed great emphasis on memorization of their sacred text, and many mullahs today are able to recite the Qur’an without mistake. The earliest claim for the public recitation of the Qur’an is found in respect to Abdullah bin Mas’ud, who proclaimed it at the pagan sanctuary in Mecca, in the early period of Muhammad’s ministry. Of course, there would have been only a restricted portion of the Qur’an to express at this time, and what bin Mas’ud recited according to the sira was clearly Surah 55 Rahman Ayah 1ff. This points to an early period of oral transmission, to which should be added the testimony of the hadith on the subject which encouraged memorization. Zayd ibn Thabit records that when he began his collection of the Qur’anic text it existed as writings on ‘… palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart… ‘

2.3 The Structure of the Qur’an

The chapters of the Qur’an are called surahs, meaning ‘fences’. They are arranged in order of length rather than chronology. It is often difficult for a Christian reader coming to the Qur’an for the first time to understand the nature of what he is reading, since its form is so different from the Biblical structure of books and verses. The themes within each surah are not all sequential, but rather purportedly reflect the order established by Muhammad. Agreement with this proposition, however, depends upon whether one is a Sunni or a Shi’i. Further, it should be remembered that since revelation was effected over a period of twenty years, compilation was necessarily piecemeal. As stated earlier, for the most part, the Qur’an was preserved through oral tradition; necessarily so since most of the Prophet’s Companions were illiterate.

2.3.1 Abrogated Verses

A major issue in Qur’anic interpretation is that of abrogation – Naskh. Within the Qur’an itself are statements which offset others, but according to the doctrine of abrogation the later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies. The Muslim argument is that the abrogated verses were only meant for specific, temporary situations. We have seen that the revelation of the Qur’an is grounded in the historical circumstances of the life and career of Muhammad, and so there is a progressive element in doctrine of Islam’s holy book. Situations change and develop, and since the Qur’an reflects this, its teachings changed with the circumstance at hand. At the most obvious level we can see this in the fact that in the early years of Islam, Muhammad was a minority preacher in Mecca, concerning himself with almost solely theological and moral/social issues, but when he moved to Medina, he became the Governmental Executive, and so his revelations began to address legal, political and economic matters. The Qur’an explains the practice of abrogation by referring to the sovereignty of God. Yusuf Ali says:

For: 2.106

The word which I have translated by the word ‘revelations’ is Ayat… It is not only used for verses of the Quran, but in a general sense for God’s revelations, as in ii. 39 and for other Signs of God in history or nature, or miracles, as in ii. 61. It has even been used for human signs and tokens of wonder, as, for example, monuments or landmarks built by the ancient people of AD (xxvi. 128). What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means tht God’s Message from age to age is always the same, but that its Form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. In iii. 7 we are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are basic or fundamental, and others are allegorical, and it is mischievous to treat the allegorical verses and follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as ii. 115 as if it were abrogated by ii. 144 about the Qibla. We turn to the Qibla, but we do not believe that God is only in one place. He is everywhere.

As can be seen, some Muslims believe that this verse refers to Jewish and Christian Scriptures. However, it is not the only verse that impinges on this subject, and these others indicate that what is involved is abrogation of the Qur’an.

For: 16.101

… The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message as revealed to him is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

In the Hadith, we find reference to abrogation which specifically relates this practice to the Qur’an. Another text concerns Surah 2:106; a Qur’anic reciter was supposed to have memorised every revelation from Muhammad, so what was under consideration in this text was whether he should have deleted those verses which had been cancelled. Finally, there are Hadith texts which settle the issue that abrogation relates to the Qur’an itself, rather than to the holy scriptures of the Jews and Christians (or anyone else for that matter). The Hadith illustrates our earlier point about the progressive character of Qur’anic revelation, and how an aspect of this related to the changed conditions of Muhammad after the Hegira. The classic example often used by Muslim exegetes to explain the mechanics of abrogation is found with respect to the widow’s bequest.

To understand what this involves, we can examine the fact that Islam makes a great point in portraying itself as a ‘mercy’ to Mankind, and part of this is that is does not burden believers with too much ritual obligation. For example, Surah 73 begins in vs. 2 – 4, by commanding Believers to spend a considerable portion of the night in prayer, but ayah 20 abrogates this. S. 43:89 orders that polytheists be let alone, however, S. 2:190-191 commands that they be slaughtered.

However, it is not only the case that the Qur’an abrogates itself; the Sunnah also abrogates parts of the Qur’an. This can be seen in the Mut’ah practice of temporary marriage. According to Sunnis, this was later abrogated, and the hadith refers to this. Ahmad von Denffer records three types of abrogation with respect to the Qur’an, which he evidences by quoting from ayat and ahadith:

1. Abrogation of the recited verse together with the legal ruling:
   

   Aisha

   SAHIH MUSLIM

   It had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).

2. Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited verse:
   

   Surah: 33. Ahzab Ayah: 50

   50. O prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her this only for thee and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for Thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

   52. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this nor to change them for (other) wives even thought their beauty attract thee except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.

3. Abrogation of the recited verse without with the legal ruling:
   

   Abdullah ibn Abbas

   SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

   … Umar sat on the pulpit and when the summoners for the prayer had finished their announcement, Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, ‘Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say… Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him. Among that which Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of a married person (male or female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we recited this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

   I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book.’ and thus they will go astray by abandoning an obligation which Allah has revealed. The punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted on any married person (male or female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse provided the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession…

von Denffer notes that the punishment of stoning for adultery has been retained in the Sunnah, whilst it is not present in the Qur’an. According to Ibn Salama, an authority on the subject, there are:

43 surahs with neither nasikh (abrogating verses) or mansakh (abrogated verses)

6 surahs with nasikh but no mansakh.

40 surahs with mansakh but no nasikh.

25 surahs with both nasikh and mansakh.

According to Jalauddin us-Suyuti there are 21 abrogated verses, and according to Shah Waliullah there are five:

Mansakh 2:180 Nasikh 4:11, 12
Mansakh 2:240 Nasikh 2:234
Mansakh 8:65 Nasikh 8:62
Mansakh 30:50 Nasikh 33:52
Mansakh 58:12 Nasikh 58:13

The problem for Christians as they read the Qur’an, is that its structure is unlike that of the Bible in this regard. The New Testament, because of the Sacrifice of Christ, ‘abrogates’ the Old Testament rulings on animal sacrifices, since the latter had a prophetic character which is now fulfilled; to a large extent, this is the message of Hebrews, e.g. 10:1ff. On a similar basis, the kosher laws of the Old Testament are superseded by the declaration of Jesus in Mark 7:19 that all foods were now ‘clean’. In these cases, however, abrogation occurs because of prophetic fulfilment. This ending of food legislation and other aspects of the Law often seems so arbitrary to Muslims, and encourages them to believe that the Christians have tampered with their Scriptures. They do not understand the eschatological element involved. The structure of the Christian Scriptures, whereby the books that celebrated the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies of the Tenak, i.e. what we call the New Testament, in temporal terms obviously came later than the Old Testament texts, and the present Biblical structure, though arbitrary in terms of denoting the books as ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’, reflect the theological fact of the change that the Advent of Christ has wrought. Moreover, we are dealing with later books that abrogate aspects of the former books.

With the Qur’an, however, this is not the case. There is no element of realized eschatology involved. Nor is it simply a case that the Qur’an abrogates elements of the previous books. Rather, verses abrogate others in the same book, and the structure of the Qur’an does not reveal this, as the abrogated texts are not removed. Hence the need for instruction in the science of Qur’anic interpretation and the impact of the Sunnah. The fact that Christian ‘abrogation’ is of a different character to that of Islam is confusing to Muslims, and adds to the belief that the New Testament is fraudulent. This is especially true when we consider the role that the Sunni-Shia dispute has played in this. The Shia deny that the rule on temporary marriage has been abrogated, and naturally consider the Sunni hadith abolishing the practice as being untrue. The Sunnis, on the other hand, regard the Shia as sinning by continuing the practice. It is not surprising that when Muslims accuse each other of corruption in issues of text and canon on issues affecting doctrine and practice, that they naturally accuse ‘the nations before them’ of similar actions when they discover differences with Islam.

2.4 Variant Readings

One interesting feature about Islamic dogma concerning the Qur’an is that the holy book is held to have been revealed in seven different ways. There are various opinions about what this means. For example, one tradition linked it to seven different reciters of the text This however, is generally not accepted. Another possibility is that it refers to pages expressed in different Arab dialects. For example, a recent Muslim contributor to the Internet stated the following:

At the time of the Prophet… Arabs use [sic]to speak many different accents. Many of them did not know how to read or write. So Allah (SWT), allowed for them to read it in different ways. For example the tribe of Quraish do not pronounce the ‘hamza’ while the tribe of Tamim… pronounce it… When it comes to writing there have to be some differences in spelling, those who pronounce the ‘hamza’ wrote it down as the prophet taught them, others did not write it. Other differences in tone ‘harakat’, grammar or using a different word for the same meaning…

To this agrees the modern Muslim scholar von Denffer, as one of several possibilities. He points out that tribes like the ones mentioned above pronounced words differently, for example al-tabuh and al-tabut (2:248). Other differences include variant readings of words such as ‘trusts’ in 23:8, which can be read as either singular or plural in the unvowelled text, or in different wordings of a particular passage, such as 9:100, where adding min (‘from’) to the text gives a minor variant reading. Again, synonyms are used, such as in 101:5 which reads as ‘Ka-l-‘ihni-l-manfush’, but another reading is ‘Ka-s-sufi-l-manfush’, both meaning ‘like carded wool’. von Denffer also points out variant readings in the texts of the Companions, such as the omission of qul (‘Say’) in the texts of ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ubaid and ‘Umar with respect to S. 112:1, with ibn Mas’ud’s text replacing al-ahad (‘unique’) with al-wahid (‘one’), omitting 112:2, and replacing lam yalid wa lam yulad (‘he begets not’) for lam yulad wa lam yulid (‘he is not begotten’). The Muslim scholar Tabataba’i points out that ‘… the script used at the time was the kufic style and had no diacritical points; each word could be read in various ways.’ It should be noted that the Hadithimplies that there were different dialectic readings of the Qur’an.

This difference in recitation was later to lead to conflict between Syrians and Iraqis, and this led ‘Uthman to standardise the Qur’anic text.

3. Collation of the Qur’an

3.1 Fragmentary Existence

Whilst Muhammad was alive, certain of his companions began the compilation of the Qur’an, and this is recorded in the Hadith literature, an indication of how important it was to establish the claims of the Qur’an and especially to assert its purity of text. Amongst these, a major figure in the redaction of the Qur’an was Zayd ibn Thabit. There are clear evidences of different versions of the Qur’an in the early period, at least in regard to order. Four reciters had memorized it before the death of Muhammad. However, Muhammad said that he had left ‘the Book of Allah’ for his people, and there is evidence that parts were written down during Muhammad’s lifetime by some of his followers. Yusuf Ali says the following about Surah 80:13ff:

For: 80. 13

At the time this Sura was revealed, there were perhaps only about 42 or 45 Suras in the hands of the Muslims. But it was a sufficient body of Revelation of high spiritual value, to which the description give here could be applied. It was held in the highest honor; its place in the hearts of Muslims was more exalted than that of anything else; as Allah’s Word, it was pure and sacred; and those who transcribed it were men who were honorable, just and pious. The legend that the early Suras were not carefully written down and preserved in books is a pure invention. The recensions made later in the time of the first and the third Khalifas were merely to preserve the purity and safeguard the arrangement of the text at a time when the expansion of Islam among non Arabic-speaking people made such precautions necessary.

The written existence of some parts of the Qur’an at least is also implied by the fact that people were forbidden to touch it unless they were in a state of ritual purity. However, what was written down tended to be fragmentary. The Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, says that when Muhammad died, the Qur’an

… consisted of scattered fragments either privately collected or preserved in human memory. It was the Muslim community which in the end gave the Qur’an its final form and reduced it to a single standard version which remains unchanged to this day. The community has, moreover, guaranteed the authenticity and truthfulness of the Qur’an through its universal and unbroken process of transmission. Thus it is the community consensus on the shape and authenticity of the Divine Word which ultimately shaped the Qur’an.

3.2 The Role of Consensus

It is worth noting the role ijma played in the process of collation. There is a tradition in the Hadith that it is impossible for the united Ummah to err, so ijma on this issue is a divine seal on the ordering of the text. However, the Sunni-Shia divide on the text of the Qur’an raises questions about this authority, since the obvious point is the lack of consensus as to the true form of Islam’s holy book. We see evidence of this lack of consensus in the traditions, for some surahs were not named at first. It is also implied by the fact that Gabriel checked the recitation of the Qur’an once a year, presumably because the majority of the revelation was preserved orally, and thus was subject to the infirmity of the human memory. There would be little point in checking it if it were all set down in writing. The alternative explanation, that he would come to confirm that the text had not been corrupted by someone, would not commend itself to Muslims.

3.3 Collation Under the Caliphs

The complete compilation was the work of the Muslim leadership under Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman. The first compilation occurred after the Battle of Yamama in 633 during which some Qurra had been killed. Obviously, if the entire text, as recognized by every Muslim, had been already collated, there would not have been the sense of urgency that accompanied the death of these men. The event was recorded by Zayd ibn Thabit, and the narrative reveals that not even the Prophet of Islam himself had previously collected the Qur’an:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), ‘Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.’ I said to ‘Umar, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ ‘Umar said, ‘By Allah, that is a good project.

‘Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.’ Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).’ By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, ‘How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ Abu Bakr replied, ‘By Allah, it is a good project.’ Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba) (9.128-129)

Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.

The edition given to Hafsa was not copied nor presented as the ‘Authorised Version’ of the Islamic holy book, but rather appears to have been a private copy in the hands of the Caliph to safeguard against the loss of the text through incidents such as the battle in question. Other people kept their own codices, or relied on their own memorization of the text. This explains the trouble during the rule of ‘Uthman arise about variant copies. As we shall see, the Shia claimed that Ali already had both a written copy and appendices of the Qur’an.

These texts reveal the central role of Zayd ibn Thabit in the collation of the Qur’an, and that this occurred under Governmental mandate. However, it is clear that Zayd ibn Thabit’s collation did not fully resolve the matter, as we see later under the caliphate of ‘Uthman in 653, which indicates that variant readings remained a problem for the early Muslim community. In fact, so distinct were the variant readings of the Qur’an that there was trouble between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq at the time of ‘Uthman. The Christian apologist Campbell states that the differences arose from the Syrians using the collection of Ubayy bin Ka’b whereas the Iraqis used that of Ibn Mas’ud. von Denffer points out that the collection of Ibn Mas’ud differed from the ‘Uthmanic recension by excluding Surahs 1, 113, and 114, and also in terms of order, pronunciation, spelling and the use of synonyms. Likewise, the collection of bin Ka’b differs in order and variant readings from that of ‘Uthman and also that of Ibn Mas’ud. Not all 114 surahs are present in his collation, and he purportedly adds two extra ones, as well as an additional verse. Doi states that the Syrian-Iraqi conflict was over textual order, an issue that arises again when we examine the Sunni-Shia dispute. Maududi, in his Introduction to Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary, holds that the dispute was over dialect readings. Tabataba’i states that the problem arose because

… differences and inconsistencies were appearing in the copying down of the Qur’an; some calligraphers lacked precision in their writing and some reciters were not accurate in their recitation.

Ahmad von Denffer claims that the differences were largely a matter of pronunciation and spelling, and this is the common Islamic view. It is amazing that such minor distinctions could have caused so much controversy, and that insignificant differences could have compelled ‘Uthman to take the drastic action he did:

Anas ibn Malik

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ‘O chief of the believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.’

So Uthman sent a message to Hafsah saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.’ Hafsah sent it to Uthman.

Uthman then ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, Sa’id ibn al-‘As, and AbdurRahman ibn Harith to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.

Uthman said to the three Qurayshi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.’

They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one set of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Zayd ibn Thabit added, ‘A verse from surat al-Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al-Ansari.

(That verse was): –

‘Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'(33:23)

We learn from this that the collation of Zayd ibn Thabit ordered under Abu Bakr and held by Hafsa became the canonical Qur’an at the time of ‘Uthman by virtue of it being chosen by the political authority and by all other copies of the Qur’anbeing destroyed. It is noteworthy that the text did not become canonical under Abu Bakr. When one considers the reverence given to the Qur’an by Muslims, this destructive action on the part of the Caliph may imply how distinct many of the copies might have been from the chosen version, at least in regard to the kind of variants von Denffer proposes. Moreover, it is instructive that Zayd did not rely upon his memory of the text, but rather investigated various readings. However, the existence of variant copies, such as that of Ali, suggests that some Qurra under ‘Uthman had memorized different readings. It is also noteworthy that ‘Uthman’s action, restricting the recitation of the Qur’an to the Quraish dialect, overturned the permission of the Prophet to recite the text in different dialects. This in itself demonstrates the seriousness of the event; the Caliph would not have lightly acted in this way unless he faced a genuine emergency.

In the light of many Muslim jibes that Christians do not have the autographs of the Bible it is interesting to note that a Muslim scholar such as Ahmad von Denffer states that

Most of the early original Qur’an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. The earliest copy… dated from the late second century. However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur’anic papyri available, which date from the first century.

There is a copy of the Qur’an in the Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin, which has been dated 68 Hijra (688 A.D.), i.e. 58 years after the Prophet’s death.

He goes on to say that ‘Uthman kept a copy for himself, and five were sent to major cities. What is extraordinary is the action ‘Uthman took in establishing an authorised text. Try as one might, it is impossible to get any true Muslim to write in, tear or burn any copy of the Qur’an. In fact, riots have often started in Muslim countries when it has been reported that someone has defiled the holy book in this way. The Hadith literature speaks about the miraculous qualities of the Qur’an, which include its being inflammable. It is therefore all the more astonishing that Islam records that ‘Uthman was successful in his auto da fe of existing copies. To understand the urgency of his action, we must recognise the emphasis Islam places on Ijmaand Muslim unity. Whenever a Muslim meeting is held, the issue of the unity of the Islamic world is at the top of the agenda. ‘Unity is strength’ is a genuine Muslim attitude. Muslims frequently blame their depressed political condition on their disunity. After all, the Gulf War would have been impossible if the Muslim Umma had been united, and America’s attitude to the Palestinian issue would doubtless be different if it had to take into consideration the opinion of a single, Islamic mega-state. Likewise, we can understand that ‘Uthman, given that Islam was still a young religion, and one that was in political-military conflict with its neighbours, would be concerned at anything which would weaken the unity of the nascent community, especially when internal conflict arose in the course of a military campaign. One should also remember that in Islam, there is no separation between religion and politics. Muhammad was a Ruler as well as a Prophet. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, had to engage in jihad against rebels who refused to pay their Zakat religious tax. Taxation is a political activity, but here it referred to religion. Further, these uprisings are called the Riddah rebellions, a term used also to describe religious apostasy. The Sunni-Shia divide was originally a dispute about political succession. Malise Ruthven states:

The divisions of Islam, in contrast to those of Christianity, have their origins in politics rather than dogma. This is not to say that dogmatic and theological questions do not form part of these divisions. However, the questions over which they first crystallised were political to the extent that they were primarily concerned with leadership of the community. Having a religious ideology built on the social foundations of tribalism, the Muslims expressed their aspirations first in terms of group loyalty, and only afterwards in terms of the doctrinal and theological accretions surrounding these loyalties.

If the Muslim community split, not only would there have been a number of sects comparable to the divisions of Christianity, but by definition, Secular and Holy being synonymous, there would have been at least the danger of the emergence of separate Muslim states. The Sunni-Shia divide, for example, helped to preserve Shi’i Iran’s independence from the Sunni Ottoman caliphate. Had there been separate editions of Islam’s holy book, even if the differences were comparatively minor, the obligation to have a single Islamic state could not have been fulfilled, since the basis for state law in Islam is essentially the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If there is no unity as to the sacred text of Islam, there could not have been a united hermeneutic and thus ijtihad – legal/theological study seeking to establish a policy.

Moreover, it should be remembered that in Islam, the Qur’an is equivalent in position to Jesus in Christianity. Christianity centres on the Person and Work of Christ. We know from the history of the early Church the painful disputes that ensued over Christology, with various heresies such as Arianism, Monarchianism, Monothelitism, etc., all threatening the unity of the Church and the purity of its doctrine. The conflicts and councils that ensued from these challenges all testify to how crucial for the Church is the question ‘What think ye of Christ?’ Not for nothing was Hudhayfah so urgent in his cry to ‘Uthman to save the Muslims from the divisions suffered by Jews and Christians. If I may say advisedly, even if the Church did not have the Bible, it would still exist, because it has the Risen, reigning Christ. The role of the Bible is secondary to that of Christ. It witnesses to Him and His activity. Although oral tradition preserved the words and actions of Jesus intervening period, it is obvious that years passed before the complete New Testament was extant. The central act for Christianity is not the revelation of the Bible, but the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Christian emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus and His supernatural intervention in the life of a believer witnesses to the Christocentric nature of Christian faith and experience.

Islam, by contrast, centres on the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the revelation that establishes Islam, that instructs men how to live according to the will of God. Without it, Islam does not exist. One cannot have Christianity without Christ, and one cannot have Islam without the Qur’an. Christian initiation, based on Romans 10:9, involves a confession that implies a supernatural experience of the Spirit of Christ, as is indicated by 8:9-11. The Muslim credal affirmation, the Shahada, states ‘La ilaha illa llah Muhammadur rasulu llah’ – ‘there is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God’. The Divine message Muhammad brought was the Qur’an, so if there is a dispute about its actual text, the effect is the same as conflict concerning the Person of Christ, since His Work is inextricably linked to, and flows from His Person. If I may borrow from 1 Corinthians 15:17, if the Qur’an is not revealed, Islamic faith is futile and Muslims are still in their sins. For the Qur’an to be revealed, its text must be pure. The Muslim scholar Bucaille makes this point in his polemical book; ‘It was absolutely necessary to ensure the spread of a text that retained its original purity: Uthman’s recension had this as its objective.’

In the light of this, we can understand what a desperate situation ‘Uthman faced, and why he took the extraordinary action of burning copies of Islam’s holy book. The doctrine of Ijma consecrated the action of the Caliph – the agreement of the Sahabah represented the voice of God, since the united Muslim community cannot err. What is so pertinent for our concern as Christians is the effect this has had in Islam’s view of Biblical canonicity. Given that the Qur’an is the paradigmatic Scripture for Muslims, it is natural for them to assume that the Muslim canonical process mirrors Christian historical experience. The Muslim polemicist ur-Rahim writes about the Council of Nicaea:

In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held… out of the three hundred or so Gospels extant at the time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the Church… It was also decided that all Gospels written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death.

He goes on to allege:

According to one source, there were at least 270 versions of the Gospel at this time, while another states there were as many as 4,000 different Gospels… It was decided that all the Gospels remaining under the table should be burned… It became a capital offence to possess an unauthorised Gospel. As a result, over a million Christians were killed in the years following the Council’s decisions. This was how Athanasius tried to achieve unity among the Christians.

It need hardly be said that all this is pure fantasy, bearing no resemblance to actual events or decisions at the Council of Nicaea, which at any rate was not concerned with textual issues. It is noteworthy that the author gives no sources for his preposterous assertions. Yet this is the common Muslim idea of Christian canonical history, especially with regard to Nicaea. The trouble is that Muslim polemicists are not only convinced of a Christian conspiracy to pervert the Scriptures, and must find a convenient scapegoat such the Council of Nicaea, which purportedly destroyed the ‘Islamic’ Gospel. They are governed by the presuppositions of their own canonical history to imagine that like ‘Uthman’s commission, the Christians needed such an official event to decide upon their authoritative text. Given that consensus is so important to Muslims, it is natural for them to assume that the same must be true of Christians – note ur-Rahim’s comments about Athanasius. Following from this, it can be understood why Muslim polemicists would write what they do about the burning and destruction of variant New Testament texts: they are looking at Nicaea anachronistically in the light of ‘Uthman’s action to establish a single, authorised text. Like the Sunnah of the Prophet, the policy of the first four Caliphs of Islam – the Righteous Caliphs – is an obligated model for Sunni Muslims. It follows that their actions that should be the paradigm to be followed after them, and must have been the appropriate action to take in the years of the earlier Abrahamic faiths. Further, since the procedure for Islamic canonical orthodoxy was State-enforced, it is natural for Muslims to assume the same was true with regard to the Christian Scriptures, and likewise the penalty for disobedience. It does not seem to occur to Muslim polemicists that even if what they say about Nicaea were true, how could Constantine have enforced this decision outside his own borders, for example, among the Christians of Persia and Ethiopia? Moreover, since there are minor variants as to isolated verses, and Bible-translations – like Qur’anic translations, such as those of Yusuf Ali and Pickthall – are not identical in every way in their choice of words, although they have the same content, it is mystifying that the Christians in recent years have not resorted to such heavy-handed tactics as they purportedly did at Nicaea according to Islamic polemicists.

4. The Impact of the Sunnah

4.1 Classification of Hadith

The Sunnah, or the ‘path, way, manner of life’ records the sayings and doings of Muhammad, whose way of life became a norm for the entire Muslim community. Muhammad provided a pattern by the example of his life for others to follow as the Qur’an itself testifies. The life of Muhammad was the display of the teachings of the Qur’an, and thus was itself hermeneutical. On this basis, the words and acts of Muhammad were themselves revelatory as the practical outworking of the Prophetic Message. Moreover, many issues were not addressed in the Qur’an, and the Sunnah deals with these. This was especially pertinent before the collation of the Qur’an, when it was still fragmentary. Hence, Muhammad’s actions, his judgments, policies, words and silences are the norm of conduct and ethics for all Muslims. Muslims are prone to say of Muhammad that ‘his life was the Qur’an‘ or vice versa. As one Islamic scholar states

The Qur’an is both the foundation and fountain of Faith and, among the fundamentals of Divine Law, the Sharee’ah, its place is unique. Its purpose however is only to lay down the principles. Its elaboration and interpretation are left to the Sunnah and Hadeeth.

The Sunnah, the example of the Prophet in his words and deeds, is transmitted through the Hadith. A Hadith is divided into two parts:

1. Isnad: This word means ‘supporting’. It records the names of the persons handing down the tradition (the transmissional chain)

2. Matn: the actual information

We can see from the following text an example of this:

Abdullah ibn Umar

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Safwan ibn Muhriz al-Mazini narrated that while I was walking with ibn Umar holding his hand, a man came in front of us and asked, ‘What have you heard from Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) about an-Najwa?’

Ibn Umar said, ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying, ‘Allah will bring a believer near Him and shelter him with His Screen and ask him, ‘Did you commit such-and-such sins?’…

We see the chain of narration from ibn Muhriz to ibn Umar to Muhammad himself is the Isnad; the Matn refers to God’s discourse with a believer about sin. The Isnad became the testing point for the authenticity of a hadith. There were several criteria for a genuine tradition:

1. The narration must distinctly state something said or done by the Prophet.

2. The traditional chain must be able to be traced back to the original reporters and thus to Muhammad himself.

3. All the transmitters had to be men of excellent character and piety.

4. The tradition must not contradict the Qur’an or any other sound tradition.

The principal criteria for classification were:

1. Perfection or otherwise of the chain of transmission.

2. Freedom of the text from defect.

3. Acceptance of the text by the Sahabah (in the case of Sunnis), the Tabi’un (their followers) and the Tab’ Tabi’un (their successors). Obviously, with the Shia, the integrity of traditions depends upon their acceptance by the Imams.

There are three classes of hadith:

1. Sahih: This means a ‘sound’ or genuine tradition, with a reliable chain of transmission with no weaknesses.

2. Hasan: This is a ‘fair’ text, but not wholly reliable, since the narrators were not the best.

3. Da’if: A ‘weak’ tradition, because of internal defects and unreliable transmission.

Within this category are several sub-divisions:

1. Mu’allaq: Where a text omits one or two transmitters in the beginning of the Isnad.

2. Maqtu’: Reported by a Tab’i.

3. Munqati’: Broken traditions.

4. Mursal: Incomplete texts omitting Sahabah from the chain of Tab’i to Prophet.

5. Musahhaf: Texts with a mistake in words or letters of Isnad or Matn.

6. Shadh: Texts with reliable chains, but with meanings contrary to majority attested traditions.

7. Maudu’: Fabricated texts.

Other divisions, used especially by Tirmidhi, include the idea that Gharib can refer either to the isnad or the matn. It refers to a certain weakness in some respect.

It may refer to the only tradition known by a certain line of transmission, although the same tradition may be known by other line, this type being gharib regarding the isnad. It may refer to a tradition whose matn has only one transmitter, this type being gharib regarding both isnad and matn. It may refer to a tradition which comes only from a man who is considered reliable, or in which some addition to what is found in other lines of the same tradition is made by a man of this quality, such a tradition being called gharib sahih.

Gharib can also refer to the use of rare words in a text, although it is not so-employed in the Mishkat al-Masabih, an important hadith collection. The terms gharib hasan and hasan gharib are descriptions of texts which are recognised as hasan in terms of transmission and which does not contradict other transmissions, but has itself only one line of transmission, and is thus simultaneously considered gharib. Hasan gharib sahih and hasan sahih gharib are also found in the Mishkat, and seem to refer to a hasan sahih tradition which has some feature that is gharib. Hasan sahih describes a hadith whose isnad is hasan, but which is supported by another whose isnad is sahih.

4.2 Collection of Hadith

As time passed, more and more of these sayings were recorded, including undoubtedly a number of forgeries. In order to collect, sift and systematize this massive product, scholars started travelling all across the Muslim world.. For this reason, the dating for the collections is somewhat late. Strict rules were laid down to separate true ahadith from false. It should be noted that we have evidence from the Hadith literature itself that the transmission in some cases must have been oral at the beginning, rather than written. Although oral tradition was usually considered reliable, there was some reticence with regard to confidence on this issue among the narrators. Sunni Muslims have ever since regarded a particular six of these collections as authoritative:

Sahih Bukhari (d. 870)

Sahih Muslim (d. 875)

Abu Dawud (d. 888)

Al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)

An-Nasai (d. 915)

Ibn Madja (d. 886)

The most important collector of ahadith was undoubtedly Imam al-Bukhari of Bukhara in central Asia, 810-870 A.D. All of Bukhari’s collection is recognized as sound. His collection is called Jami’ al Sahih, divided into ninety-seven books with 3,450 chapters. He examined 600,000 purported examples of Hadith, memorised 200,000 but rendered all save 7295 as spurious. Many of the remaining are parallel traditions, e.g. the traditions by different narrators referring to the dread consequences of lying against the Prophet. It is significant that Muslims apologists often attack the veracity of the Gospels because of their different nuances, yet they can accept parallel hadiths which are often less similar than are the Gospels to each other.

Shia Muslims adhere to their own collections and regard many of the Sunni ahadith as forged. The most important Shia collections are the two collations of Mohammad Ibne Yaqoob Abu Jafar Kulaini (d. 939), Usool al Kafi and Forroh al Kafi.Others include Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, by Muhammad ibn Babuya (d. 991); Tahdhib al-Akhkam, by Sheikh Muhammad at-Tusi, Shaykhu’t-Ta’ifa (d.1067); Al-Istibsar, by the same author. Many Shia texts specifically attack Sunni distinctives, particularly with regard to the purported vice-gerency of Ali. It follows from this that the Shia could not accept the authenticity of any traditions narrated by the Sahabah or showing them in a good light. Neither will the Shia accept any tradition which contradicts Shi’i theology, such as temporary marriage, even if the purported narrator had been Ali. For Shi’is, ahadith are usually transmitted through their Twelve Imams, the true successors of the Prophet, as opposed to the Sunni Caliphs. Even among Shi’ites themselves, there were fabricated traditions.

It can be seen that Islam had an early problem with the question of the authenticity of texts. Granted, we are dealing here with Hadith, rather than Qur’an, but as we have seen, the Sunnah interprets the Qur’an, and acts as a secondary source of authority. Invariably, Muslims refer to their authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Hence, it is openly confessed that in their history they had problems with those who engaged in corruption of text, especially when we consider the mutual accusations of Sunnis and Shia on this issue. Given the correlation of the Books of God, it is not surprising that they assume the same is true of the Christian holy texts. Consider the problem of isnad. The Gospels are not written by Jesus Himself, but by others. This is not so insurmountable, since the authors were involved with Jesus and His ‘Companions’, but Muslims have encountered liberal Biblical scholarship which questions the authenticity of the traditional authorship of the gospels. Hence the chain of transmission is questioned. This is even more true with respect to the epistles of Paul, who was not at all associated with the earthly ministry of Jesus, and who did not write gospels, but epistles on his apostolic authority. Muslims do not take seriously his Damascus Road experience. Secondly, the issue of matn arises. We saw earlier with respect to criteria for soundness that the tradition must not contradict the Qur’an or any other sound tradition. This is true for both Sunnis, and Shia. As I stated in my earlier paper, The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures, the Gospels appear to Muslims to be of the characteristics of Hadith literature. In this case, the Christian ‘hadiths‘ (as Muslims would see them) do not agree with the Qur’an. The New Testament is therefore judged unreliable.

5. Shi’ism and the Qur’an

5.1 Shi’ism – Origins and Politics

The essential distinction between Sunnis and Shia is their concept of the Imamate and its restriction to the Alids, the House of Ali. Shi’is claim their Imams, being the descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima, to be the true successors of the Prophet. Ali is held to be the only genuine successor of Muhammad. After the death of Muhammad, Medinese Muslims assembled to appoint one of their number to the succession, but Abu Bakr arrived and successfully argued for a Meccan member of the Quraysh tribe as Caliph, and he himself duly received this honour. Shi’is argue that since so much of Abu Bakr’s claims relied upon the issue of kinship, the person with the strongest claim was Ali. It follows from this that later Sunni caliphs like Muwaiya and Yazid were guilty of sin in attacking the House of Ali. The implication is that Ali was to be both the chief aide of Muhammad and his successor. Another text echoes this, and it is important since it reflects the actions of Muhammad after the Farewell Pilgrimage of Muhammad in 632 which in Shi’i eyes designated Ali as the successor of Muhammad, and by implication, indicates that those who appointed or took the position of authority were guilty of rebellion against the Prophet and thus apostasy.

The word translated ‘patron’ in the hadith is Mawla, a strong term which is better rendered as ‘lord’ or ‘guardian’; it is used of God Himself. As with the previous text, this hadith is accepted by both Sunnis and Shia alike, and implies, in the eyes of Shia, that Ali was his designated successor and was recognized in this by Umar , the Caliph preceding Ali. Because the succession went someone other than Ali, it naturally follows that Abu Bakr, Umar and ‘Uthman were guilty of rebellion against Islam, since the faith is partly defined as obedience to the Apostle. Shi’is have an intense and emotional love for Ali and his two immediate successors Hasan and Hussain. All Muslims revere the memory of Muhammad’s grandsons. The implication is that those who oppose the House of Ali are guilty of opposing Muhammad, and thus God Himself. The text is so-employed by Shi’is. Moreover, what was said about the relationship of Ali to Muhammad is also stated about Hussain, the son of Ali, and the same is said of his brother Hasan. It follows that those who martyred Hussain were guilty of opposing Islam.

5.2 Sunni-Shia Conflict and Political Resolution

Since politics and religion are coterminous in Islam, it should not surprise us that throughout Islamic history, there have been frequent conflicts between Sunnis and Shia. In contemporary Pakistan, there have been terrible riots with much loss of life between the two confessions. The militant Sunni group Sipah-i-Sahabah have declared their hatred for the Shia, and the issue of Shia attitude to the Companions and the ‘Uthmanic edition of the Qur’an plays its part in this. One of the difficulties Iran has faced in exporting the Islamic revolution is the fact that it is a primarily Shi’i country. Saudi Arabia, being controlled by the militantly anti-Shia Wahhabi sect of Sunnis has used this in its propaganda against Iran, although the real reason for their mutual hostility is that Saudi Arabia is a conservative regime, widely seen as an American client state, whilst Iran is a radical, anti-imperialist Government. The largely Sunni but pro-Iranian Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, has prided itself on uniting Sunni and Shia. Its late leader, Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, had a reputation as an outspoken advocate of uncompromising Islamic radicalism, notably on the Rushdie issue. This impression tended to obscure that he was actually one of the finest Islamic political theorists of the twentieth century, and certainly one of the most acute Muslim minds to have arisen in the West to date. A major advantage is that he writes in English, and being a Western-educated political scientist and journalist, his works are easy for Occidental minds to understand. As with Ali Shariati of Iran, and Malcolm X in the USA, his influence in death is likely to exceed that he exercised in life. One area in particular that he made a significant contribution is his understanding of Khomeini’s concept of the Guardianship of the Jurisconsult. The idea that in the absence of the Mahdi, for whose manifestation both Sunni and Shia wait, the ruler of the Islamic State inherits all the political power of the Prophet, as practised by the revolutionary Government in Iran, means that ‘… for all practical purposes, on issues of Leadership, State and politics, there is no longer any difference between the Sunni and Shi’i positions.’

5.3 Sunni Polemics

Since the Sunni-Shia divide was primarily political in origin, the contribution of Khomeini and Siddiqi might indicate that a major bone of contention has been healed, and we can only pray that the peaceful relations the two Islamic sects have enjoyed in Britain and the West will continue. However, the divide encompasses more than political considerations. A relatively minor problem is that Shi’is do not believe the Qur’an is uncreated. The Shia, because they hold that the activeattributes of God, such as speaking, are not eternal, believe that the Qur’an, as the ‘speech’ of God, is created. To Shia, the Sunni view borders on polytheism. A major difficulty is that Sunni and Shi’i polemicists accuse each other of corrupting the Qur’an. Saudi Arabia has printed a number of anti-Shia booklets in English in recent years which allege that the Shi’is make this claim about the Sunnis – that the latter have tampered with the text by excising verses. For example, the Jamaican-Canadian Muslim convert, Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, one of the most respected Islamic scholars in the West, has translated anti-Shia works which make this assertion, especially about the ‘missing’ Surah concerning Ali, Surah Wilaya, that the Shi’is are supposed to allege was excised from the Qur’an. A further claim is that Shi’is believe that yet another chapter Surah Nurain (forty-one verses), the ‘Chapter of the Two Lights’ (i.e. Muhammad and Ali) was removed. Sunnis allege that Shi’is believe that the authentic copy of the Qur’an, compiled by Ali, is in the hands of the Twelfth Imam and will be presented by him when he returns as Mahdi. In the meantime, Shi’is use the ‘Uthmanic Qur’an, but they interpret it in the light of their Hadith collections, which reinterpret texts in the Sunni edition of the Qur’an after a Shia fashion. According to Sunni polemicists, a Shi’i hadith purportedly states:

Jabir says, ‘I heard Imam Baqar… saying: One who says that he has collected the whole Quran is a big liar’.

It goes on to state:

‘Only Ali and the Imams collected it all and preserved it.’

It is noteworthy that even a respected Orientalist scholar such as Montgomery Watt echoes this belief.

The Shi’a, it is true, has always held that the Qur’an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to ‘Ali and the Prophet’s family. This charge… is not specially directed against ‘Uthman, but just as much against the first two caliphs, under whose auspices the first collection is assumed to have been made.

Shi’is deny these accusations, and state that they uphold the veracity of the present edition. The great Shi’i scholar Shaykh Saduq, (919-991 A. D.), stated (and with this agree the Shi’i scholars Allama Ridha Mudhaffar and Sayyid al-Murtadha)

Our belief is that the Qur’an, which God revealed to His Prophet Muhammad (is the same as) the one between the boards (daffatayn).

Jafri comments:

… the text of the Qur’an as it is to be found in the textus receptus,… is accepted wholly by the Shi’is, just as it is by the Sunnis. Thus the assertion that the Shi’is believe that a part of the Qur’an is not included in the textus receptus is erroneous.

5.4 Shi’i Qur’anic Beliefs

5.4.1 Emendations?

However, it appears that at times, whilst Shi’is agree that nothing has been added, some have indeed felt references to Ali have been excised. In Majlisi’s Hadith collection, S. 3:33′ adds ‘family of Muhammad‘ to the text. Surah 25:28 is apparently changed to read in Ali’s copy of the Qur’an, which will one day be revealed, ‘O would that I have not chosen the second as a friend‘, ‘the second’ referring to Abu Bakr, who was the second in the cave after Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca.. S. 3:110 is purportedly emended to read ‘You are the best of Imams‘, substituting ‘imma‘ (‘imams’) for ‘umma‘, (‘peoples’). Hence, even if Shi’is use the ‘Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an, their hadiths essentially emend it.

5.4.2 Allegorical verses

Linked to this is the issue of allegorical verses. S. 3:7 speaks of such verses, and the issue is specifically addressed in the Hadith. The division of these verses is called explicit or clear – in Arabic, mukham. The other kind are called mutashabih – implicit or allegorical. The first are held to be incapable of misinterpretation, whilst the second are not. The mukham verses have only one dimension, and are clear in meaning, the mutashabih are known only to God (in the eyes of Sunni scholars), have more than one dimension and require further explanation. The former include issues such as halal and haram,punishments, etc., whereas the latter deal with the divine nature, life after death, and similar concerns. Shi’is believe that the mutashabih verses actually have a deeper, mystical meaning, and that only the infallible Imams, recipients of divine guidance, had true knowledge of the latter kind. Since only Shi’i hadiths reveal this information, it could be argued that, in effect, Shi’is and Sunnis read something different from each other when they study the Qur’anic text, even if it is the ‘Uthmanic recension.

5.4.3 Textual Order

What does seem to be the case, is that Sunnis and Shia differ over the order of verses in the Qur’an. No-one denies that the present edition of the Qur’an is not in the same order as it was revealed. However, Sunnis believe that

Both the order of the ayat within each sura and the arrangement of the surat were finally determined by the Prophet under guidance from the Angel Gabriel in the year of his death, when Gabriel twice came to revise the text with him.

It is noteworthy, however, that von Denffer offers as the determining evidence for this assertion the statement of ‘Uthman that

… in later days, the Prophet used to, when something was revealed to him, call someone from among those who used to write for him and said: Place these ayats in the sura, in which this and this is mentioned…

Another Sunni scholar states of Muhammad with respect to textual order:

It is logical to suppose that there must have been a certain order in which he read all the verses. The Prophet also used to direct scribes as to the positioning of verses and Surahs in the Qur’an.

He goes on to refer to traditions mentioning the positioning of the last verse in the Qur’an, concerning usury. Hence, the question of textual order is crucial for Islam. According to Sunnis, the actual order is the result of divine inspiration – it is part and parcel of the Qur’an itself. Shi’is, however, deny that the ‘Uthmanic edition is true as regards its sequential order. We noted earlier the Sunni accusation about the Shi’i views of the compilation of the present text. However, Shi’is state that what their hadith actually says is the following:

I heard Abu Jafar (AS) saying: ‘No one (among ordinary people) claimed that he gathered the Quran completely in the order that was revealed by Allah except a liar; (since) no one has gathered it and memorized it completely in the order that was revealed by Allah, except ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) and the Imams after him (AS)’ (Usul al-Kafi, Tradition 607)

Hence, Shi’is utter the obvious truism

… the Quran that we use which was compiled by the companions is not in the sequence that has been revealed. In fact, the Sunni scholars confirm that the first Chapter… was Chapter al-Iqra’ (al-Alaq, Ch. 96)… Muslims agree that the verse (5:3) was among one of the last revealed… yet it is not toward the end of the present Quran. This proves that although the Quran that we have available is complete, it is not in the order that has been revealed.

The Qur’an which is in the correct order according to Shi’is is that of Ali, the first Imam and son-in-law of Muhammad. They hold that he was the first to compile the Qur’an. The Sunni polemicist Salamah agrees that Ali was one of the scribes, but only of the later, Medinan revelations. The Shi’is retort by claiming that the changed order of the Qur’an was the result of either deliberate purpose or ignorance on the part of the Companions. It is significant that von Denffer records the words of ‘Uthman as regards the question of order. Regarding ‘Uthman as they do, it is clear that they cannot accept the veracity of his statement, and they would be naturally suspicious of his edition. It is significant that a Sunni scholar such as von Denffer states that Ali wrote a copy of the Qur’an, which is held in Najaf, Iraq. Another Sunni writer, Suhaib Hasan, states

Ali had his own personal copy of the Qur’an in which he recorded Surahs in their chronological order. This was only one individual copy, and the accepted text of the Qur’an was that prepared by the first two Caliphs.

It is thus clear that Sunni and Shia agree that the Alid Qur’anic text is distinct from that of ‘Uthman at least as to order, and since textual order is an issue of revelation, we can recognize the seriousness of this division in Muslim minds. However, Ali’s text also included commentary and hermeneutical information from Muhammad

… some of which had been sent down as revelation but NOT as part of the text of Quran. A small amount of such texts can be found in some traditions in Usul al-Kafi… Thus the commentary verses and Quranic verses could sum up to 17000 verses.

This is crucial with respect to the issue of interpretation. Shia believe that Imams are the infallible interpreters of the Qur’an. According to this belief, they alone have the divinely-revealed hermeneutic and commentary on the text, as well as the proper order of the text. The transcript remains hidden in the possession of the Twelfth Imam until his manifestation. The concept is strange to Christian minds. The nearest parallel is in Apocalyptic literature, e.g. Rev. 17:7, where an angel explains the meaning of a vision. Obviously, if the Alid Qur’anic appendices are part of the inspiration accompanying the text, if the Sunnis do not possess this, they are lacking the fullness of revelation, and if the revelations are rejected, it could be argued that the Sunni Caliphs are somewhat less than faithful Muslims. Indeed, Shi’is claim Ali presented this transcript to the caliphs, but they rejected it. Tabataba’i echoes this, and appeals to the need for Muslim unity as the reason for his acquiescence. Ali then quoted S. 3:187 against them. On this basis, Shia accuse Sunnis of tahrif in the sense of displacing a verse or corrupting its meaning in the same way as the Jews did.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The extra revelation Ali possessed disclosed the identity of the abrogated and abrogating verses, and also revealed the Mutashabih verses. Inevitably, this means that whilst the text of the ‘Uthmanic recension is complete, not only its order but the knowledge of the genre of each verse, as well as the scholarship of Sunni theologians as to these vital issues is somewhat off-beam. It is not hard to see why the issue raises the passions it does. Essentially, Sunnis see Shi’i claims as heretical fantasy, and both accuse each other of distortion.

A further point to consider in this regard is that the Shia claim that their assertions on the question of order are supported by some Sunni references on the issue. As we have previously seen, Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives, narrated an incident in which reference was made to this. In particular, the collection of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, one of the Prophet’s acknowledged reciters indicates variance of order, which is significant because he claimed to know the exact order of verses. His collection was distinct, as we have seen previously. However, the Shia use this to berate ibn Mas’ud since they claim that he asserted that the last two chapters of the Qur’an were not true Surahs, but merely prayers! Similarly, Shi’is point to Sunni ahadithwhich assert the incompleteness of the Qur’an. It should be noticed that the references to the ‘two valleys’ in Sahih Muslimare not in the Qur’an but there are further references in the Hadith. Likewise, Shi’is point to a sound Sunni tradition which relates Caliph Umar speaking of a verse of stoning in the Qur’an, despite the fact that there is no such verse in the present edition. Further, Shi’is assert that ‘Uthman, the Caliph who ordered the definitive collation of the Qur’an, was also guilty of mentioning the existence of Qur’anic verses which do not exist.

This is one reason Shi’is regard the Companions as perverters of the faith. Shi’is attack them anyway for engaging in innovation – departing from the path of the Prophet, which is essentially heresy. For example, ‘Uthman extended the journey prayer which Muhammad had shortened, and he changed the rules for pilgrimage. As a consequence of this, they necessarily are suspicious of the collections under Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, especially since the Caliphs rejected the transcript of Ali, and in the case of ‘Uthman, burnt variant readings. This helps to explain the psychology of Muslim attacks on the Christian Scriptures. They emanate from a milieu in which accusations and counter-claims concerning textual corruption in some form or another have been advanced within the Muslim community against each other. It is not surprising that Christians are likewise targeted, because Shi’is see the actions of Sunni caliphs as both parallel to the historical practices of the People of the Book, and fulfilment of prophecy in this regard:

AbuSa’id al-Khudri

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

The Prophet (peace b upon him) said, ‘You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e. inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them.’

We said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him)! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?‘ He said, ‘Whom else?’ (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

What was said earlier about the relationship between theology, history and psychology needs to be reiterated. As can be seen from the often harsh words Sunnis and Shia sometimes use against each other in regard to their respective hadithcollections and the collation of the Qur’an, the attacks on the text and canon of the Bible to a large extent reflect an internal dispute between Muslims on similar issues. Family disputes are often the most bitter, and since Christians are part of the ‘Abrahamic’ prophetic family, along with Sunnis, Shia, and Jews in the eyes of Muslims, it is unsurprising that the terrible hostility that has characterized internal Islamic conflicts spills over to us as well.

Of course, this is not the only reason for Christian-Muslim difficulties with respect to the Bible. The political conflicts of the Middle Ages, especially the Crusades, the colonialism of the nineteenth century, and Western domination of the current Muslim world have all intensified passions, especially since the Gulf War and the Bosnian conflict. Muslims see no difference between religion and politics, so they are inclined to see the actions of the Belgrade or the Tel Aviv regimes as evidence of the corruption of Christian and Jewish holy texts. In this respect, they tend to see Christian evangelistic work in the same light as the massacres at Srebenica or Qana – as acts of aggression, intended to destroy the Muslims. People who are prepared to commit genocide are quite likely to be capable of anything, and certainly would not shirk to engage in deceit. It is in this light we should understand why they can imagine that the ridiculous stories Muslim polemicists publish about the Council of Nicaea and the canon of the New Testament are true.

The main reason, however, is that Muslims see themselves, or more especially Muhammad, as the eschatological fulfilment of the predictions of the previous scriptures. They affirm the unity of the Abrahamic prophets. Since, however, the Jewish-Christian holy texts differ from that of Islam, it follows that Jews and Christians must be the black sheep of the Abrahamic family. They must have distorted their scriptures, and done so in a parody of the action of ‘Uthman to establish confessional unity. In order to answer them, we must ‘speak the truth in love’, explaining what actually occurred in the realm of canonicity. To do so effectively, we must understand their own textual and canonical history, and how it affects their perceptions of Christian canonicity.

Bibliography

A. Guillaume, Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975

Al-Afghaanee, Dr Ahmad, The Mirage in Iran, trans. A. A .B. Philips, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1985

Ayoub, Mahmoud, Islam – Faith and Practice, Open Press, Toronto, 1989

Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, North American Trust Publications, USA, 1978

Campbell, William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science, Arab World Ministries, USA, 1986

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, 1987 UK reprint, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham

von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, , Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1983

Dimashkiah, Abdul Rahman, Let the Bible Speak, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, 1995

Doi, A. Rahman, Introduction to the Qur’an, Hudahuda Publishing Company, Nigeria, 1981

Doi, A. Rahman I., Introduction to the Hadith, Arewa Books, 1981, Ibadan, Nigeria

Ghiyathuddin Adelphi, and Hahn, Ernest, The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and the Hadith, Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1977

Guillaume, A., Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

Ismaeel, Saeed, The Difference between the Shi’ites and the majority of Muslim scholars, World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Riyadh, 1988 edition.

Jafri, S, Husain M., Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, Longman, London and New York, 1979

Maududi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition.

Momen, Moojan, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, Yale Univ. Press, !985, New Haven and London.

Philips, Abu Ameenah, Ibn Taymeeyah’s Essay on The Jinn, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, 1989

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Nusrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, New Delhi-110 002, India, 5th Reprint 1993 (first published in Hyderabad, 1930).

Ruthven, Malise, Islam in the World, Penguin, London, 1984, 1991

Salamah, Dr Ahmad Abdullah, The Sunni and Shia Perspective of the Holy Qur’an, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1992.

Siddiqi, Kalim, Stages of Islamic Revolution, Open Press (UK) Limited, London, 1996

Suhaib Hasan, An Introduction to the Qur’an, Al-Qur’an Society, London, 1989.

Tabataba’i, ‘Allamah Sayyid M. H., The Qur’an in Islam: Its Impact and Influence on the Life of Muslims, Zahra publications, London, 1987

The Holy Bible, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, USA, Eleventh Printing July 1980.

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, The Sources of Islam, T. & T Clark, Edinburgh

ur-Rahim, Muhammad ‘Ata, Jesus A Prophet of Islam, MWH London Publishers, 1977, 1979

Watt, Montgomery W., Introduction to the Qur’an, EUP, Edinburgh, 1970, 1977

Uncomfortable Questions for the Qur’an

Apologetic Paper by Jay Smith – 14th May 1995

Contents

1. Muslim Claims for the Qur’an

2. Disturbing Questions

   1. Do we have the Uthmanic Recension?

   2. What do archeology and the external documents tell us?

      1. Qibla

      2. Jews

      3. Mecca

      4. Dome on the Rock

      5. Muhammad

      6. Muslim

      7. Prayer

      8. Hajj

3. Conclusion

---

A: Muslim Claims for the Qur’an:

1. Uthmanic recension unchanged for 1,400 years

   1. Collated in 650. (Muhammad died in 632)

   2. Canonized in 651 by Zaid ibn Thabit

   3. 4 copies sent to Medina, Mecca, Kufa and Damascus.

2. The perfect word of God

   1. No errors

   2. No contradictions

   3. Superior to all other books (“mother of all books” S.43:3)

      1. Literary qualities

      2. Perfect Arabic

      3. Universal application.

      4. Cannot be reproduced. “Produce another Sura like it” (S.2:23).

   4. Direct revelation – no human mediation

      1. Replication of the eternal tablets in paradise. (Sura 85).

3. The seal of all revelations

   1. The final revelation

   2. Supercedes previous revelations.

4. Blueprint for every aspect of life

   1. Social agenda

   2. Morality

   3. Political programme

   4. Economics

   5. Education.

---

B: Disturbing Questions

Whose criteria will I use? Which Court of Appeal?

1. The experts (Orientalists).

   1. Question of bias

   2. Is there an agenda? YES! We all have an agenda.

2. What is Orientalism? Who are the Orientalists?

   1. History, Anthropology, Sociology, Philology, Phonology,Etymology.

   2. Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, G. Hawting, A.Jeffery

3. Orientalists formulated their methodology using the Bible. Christians didn’t run away, but defended the Bible using the scholarly criteria. Thus the Bible was strengthened for the Christians because it held up to the most severe criticism.

---

B1: Do We Have Uthmanic Recension?

Where are the copies?

Consider:

1. Most important book. Foundation of Islam.

2. THUS, must have been written on durable material.

3. Durable material existed. Codices… 4th century (Syniaticus, Alexandrinus).

   1. Ubayy Ka’b, Ibn Masud, Abu Musa, and Hafsa codices.

   2. Uthmanic recension. Not a scroll but a codex.

Muslims claim there are two.

(Topkapi and Sammarkand MSS)

How do we date scripts? Ink; medium (Papyrus-4th cent-paper.); script.

1. Ma’il 7th-9th century Medina and Mecca.

2. Mashq 7th century onwards.

3. Kufic 8th-11th century.

4. Naskh 11th century till today.

Modern scriptology since the 1950’s has discovered the earlier scripts.

Noldeke, Hawting, Schacht, Lings all date the Topkapi and Sammarkand to the 9th century.

Practical observations: Quraish=Mecca, Kufa=636 A.D.=Persia.

Earliest copy of the Qur’an is the Ma’il in British Library

Date by Lings=790.

Conclusion

We do not have the Uthmanic recension. We have the Qur’an that has existed for only the last 1,200 years.

150 year gap!!! Where are the documents? There are no earlier Qur’ans! WHY!!! Could there have been a change, an evolution up until the Umayyad period? It is likely that the Qur’an was not canonized in the 7th century, but in the 9th century. HOW DO WE KNOW? We use archeology and External sources.

---

B2: What Do Archaeology and the External Documents Tell Us?

Consider:

B2i. Qibla

Qibla was canonized (finalized) in the Qur’an in 624 towards Mecca (S.2:144, 149-150) Yet, Mosques uncovered between 650-705 do not have Qiblas facing Mecca.

1. Wasit in Iraq. Qibla points North instead of s.w.

2. Baladhuri stated that the Qibla in the first Kufan mosque (Iraq) faced West.

3. Fustat in Egypt. The Qibla points North-East towards Jerusalem instead of s.e.

4. Jacob of Odessa (Christian bishop) in 705 said Egyptian Muslims (Haggarenes) prayed towards Jerusalem, like Christians.

5. (Cook) Earliest evidence for direction of prayer (thus their sanctuary) points much further north than Mecca. In fact no mosques have been found from this period which face towards Mecca. Some Jordanian mosques also face north, while there are certain North African mosques (from much later) which face south.

6. “They didn’t know the direction.” Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers!

What is happening here? Why are the prayers not towards Mecca?

Possible reasons:

1. There was still a good relationship with Jews, so no need to change the Qibla

2. Mecca was not yet well-known.

Consider:

B2ii: Jews

1. The Qur’an says Muhammad split with Jews in 624, & thus moved the Qibla (S.2:144).

2. Yet, Greek sources speak of “the Jews who mixed with the Saracens, and of danger of falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens.”

3. An Armenian Chronicler in 660 says Jews & Ishmaelites were together upto 640, with common Abrahamic platform. They had set out to conquer Palestine.

4. The break came immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 640. Thus, documental evidence conflicts with the Qur’an over when Muh. split with Jews.

B2iii: Mecca

Was not yet significant at that time

1. Muslims say: “Mecca is the centre of Islam, and the center of history”

   1. “The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples” (S.3:96)

   2. Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka’bah there.

   3. Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Ka’bah there.

   4. Thus this is the 1st and most important city in the world!

2. Muslims say: “Mecca was the center of the trading routes.”

   1. Yet, Mecca was not on the trading route. It’s in a valley, no water, not like Taif, 100 miles away (cheaper to ship 1,250 miles than go by camel 50 miles).

   2. Yet, except for a city called “Makoraba” by geographer Ptolomy= 2nd century, no mention of Mecca, or Ka’bah in any document, until late 7th century (Cook-74). Why?

So, what is going on here? If Mecca was not the center of the Muslim world, then what was? The answer is simple. It seems that Jerusalem and not Mecca was the center and sanctuary of the Haggarenes, or Maghrebites upto 700 A.D. Take for instance another fact:

B2iv: Dome on the Rock

1. Built by Abd al-Malik (governor of Jerusalem) in 691. It is not a mosque, but a sanctuary! Considered the 3rd most holy place, to commemorate the Mi’raj.

2. Yet nothing is inscribed about the Mi’raj, but polemic verses about Jesus.

3. Why? Because this was the center of Islam then and not Mecca.

4. In fact, the inscriptions are supposedly Qur’anic, both at the dome and on coins from this period, yet they don’t coincide with the present Qur’an (Cook:74).

5. Thus, if this is from the Qur’an, how could it have been canonized at this time?

Other Problems which point to a changing revelation:

B2v: Muhammad

Muhammad, a merchant and a conqueror up till the late 7th century, but no mention as prophet until into the 8th century, and then only in Muslim literature (Maghazi?).

B2vi: ‘Muslim’

‘Muslim’ was the name first used in late 7th century.

1. Athanasius (684) in Syriac used Maghrayes.

2. Jacob of Odessa (705) mentions them as Haggarenes. (Ishmaelites, Saracen, Muhajirun)

B2vii: Prayer

Umar II (717-720), the pious caliph, didn’t know about details of the prayer.

Qur’an in Suras 11:114; 17:78-79; 20:130; 30:17-18 speaks only of 3 prayers. Where do we get 5 prayers? From the Hadith, compiled 200-250 years later (Zoroastrians).

B2viii: Hajj

Suleyman (715-717) went to Mecca to ask about Hajj. Chose to follow Malik.

---

C: Conclusion

So what can we say about the Uthmanic Recension? Where is it? Why do we not have any copies? Modern scriptology proves that the Topkapi and Sammarkand are 200 years later.

Archaeology shows us that much of what the Qur’an maintains does not coincide with the data which we posess:

1. The Qibla was not fixed until the next century

2. the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640

3. Mecca was unknown until the end of the 7th century

4. the earliest Qur’anic writings do not coincide with the Qur’an which we have today

5. the number of prayers as well as the Hajj was not formalized until after 717

6. Muhammad was not known as a prophet, nor was the word “Muslim” used until the end of the 7th century.

These are what archaeology and external sources say!

They all contradict the Qur’an which we have today, and add to the suspicion that the Qur’an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was collated and canonized in 650 A.D. by Uthman (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur’anic text. Consequently, the only thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D.) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written 160 years after Muhammad’s death, & 1,200 yrs. ago.

Does the Bible or the Qur’an have stronger historical corroboration?

The Qur’an

Does the Bible or the Qur’an have stronger historical corroboration? How would you support your argument, using specific examples?

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Authority of the Qur’an

3. The Revelation of the Qur’an

4. The Inspiration of the Qur’an

5. The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

   1. Its Holiness

   2. Its Superior Style

   3. Its Literary Qualities

   4. Its Pure Arabic

6. The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

   1. The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

   2. The “Sword” found in the Qur’an

7. The Collation, or Collection of the Qur’anic Text

   1. The Periods of Revelation

   2. The Method of Collection

      1. Zaid’s Collection

      2. Competing Collections

   3. The Standardisation of One Text

   4. The Missing Verses

      1. Sura 33:23

      2. The Verse on Stoning

   5. The Variations Between the Codices

      1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

      2. Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

   6. Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

8. The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

9. Errors Found Within the Qur’an

   1. Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

      1. Moses

      2. Yahya

      3. Trinity

      4. Ezra

   2. Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors

      1. Mary & Imran

      2. Haman

   3. Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

      1. Ishmael

      2. Samaritan

      3. Sunset

      4. Issa

      5. Mountains

      6. Alexander the Great

      7. Creation

      8. Pharaoh’s Cross

      9. Other Scientific problems

   4. Absurdities

      1. Man’s Greatness

      2. Seven Earths

      3. Jinns & Shooting Stars

      4. Solomon’s power over nature

      5. Youth and dog sleep 309 years

      6. People become apes

      7. Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

      8. Jacob’s smell & sight

      9. Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man

   5. Grammatical Errors

10. The Sources of the Qur’an

    1. Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

       1. Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

       2. Cain and Abel

       3. Abraham

       4. Mt Sanai

       5. Solomon and Sheba

       6. Mary, Imran and Zachariah

       7. Jesus’s Birth

       8. Heaven and Hell

    2. Stories Which do not Correspond with the Biblical Account

       1. Harut and Marut

       2. The Cave of 7 Sleepers

       3. The Sirat

11. Conclusion

12. References

A: Introduction

How many of you have been in a conversation with a Muslim, and you find that soon there are irreconcilable differences between you? You ask the Muslim why he or she says the things they do, and they respond that they only repeat what they have learned from the Qur’an. In reply you claim that what you believe also comes from the Word of God, the Bible. It doesn’t take long before you realize that neither side can agree because the authority for what you believe and say is at a variance to what they believe and say. Our Bible contradicts much of what their Qur’an says, and this fact alone will continue to negate many worthwhile conversations which we may wish to indulge in.

So, what is the solution? If two documents are in contradiction, the first thing to do is ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately. And if not, then we must conclude that one of the two documents is false. Therefore, before we get into serious dialogue with a Muslim we must ask the question of whether the authority for our respective beliefs (the Qur’an and the Bible) can stand up to verification, and whether they can stand up to a critical analysis of their authenticity.

This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from revealed truth, which they find in their respective scriptures. Consequently, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is a task that no-one should take lightly, and I don’t intend to do so here. For that reason, I have decided not to attempt a simplistic analysis concerning the authority of the Qur’an and the Bible in one single paper. Instead I will begin by dealing with the authority of the Qur’an in this paper and then turn my attention to the authority for our own scriptures, the Bible, in a follow-up paper.

In no way do I claim to know all the answers, nor will I be so pretentious as to assume that I can exhaustively argue the question of authority for both the Qur’an and the Bible in these two papers. These studies are nothing more than mere “overviews,” with the hope that they will stimulate you to continue studying these very important areas in your own time, so that you too will “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we observe the two faiths, we see immediately that they are in conflict with one another concerning their scriptures. Muslims believe that their scripture, the Qur’an, is the ‘final revelation,’ while Christians believe only the Bible (including the Old and New Testaments) can claim true authority.

If we were to delve into the contents of each scripture we would find that the two are at variance with one another in a number of areas: stories have changed, characters are missing and entire sections do not exist in one but do in the other.

In order to delineate which is correct, we will need to take each revelation separately and ask whether it can stand up to scrutiny, whether it can hold firm under critical analysis, and whether it can claim to be indeed the true revelation from God. Let us then start with the authority for the Qur’an

Normally when one begins any research into the Qur’an, the first question which should be asked is how we know that it is what it claims to be, the final word of God? In order to answer that question we would need to go to the sources of the Qur’an to ascertain its authenticity.

As you well know, going to the sources of the Qur’an is much more difficult then one would usually assume, as we have so little data with which to use. In another paper (The problems with Sources of Islam) I have dealt with the problems which exist when confronted by the dearth of material on the sources of the Qur’an, so I won’t repeat those arguments here.

Suffice it to say, that the only real source we have for the Qur’an is the book itself, and what Muslim Traditions tell us concerning how that book came to be created. Because of their late compilations (200-300 years after the event), and the contradicting documentation which we now possess prior to 750 C.E., I find it difficult to consider either of them as valid or authentic as source material.

However, since we are attempting to compare the Qur’an with our own scriptures, I will, for the time being, set aside my prejudices, and assume, for argument’s sake, that the traditions are correct. In other words, I will take the position of current orthodox Muslim scholarship and presume that the Qur’an was compiled in the years 646-650 C.E., from material which originated with the man Muhammad before his death in 632 C.E.

It is from this premise that I will attempt to respond to the question of whether the Qur’an can claim to be the final and most perfect revelation of God’s word to humanity.

B: The Authority for the Qur’an

The Arabic word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the root ‘qara’a’, which means “to read” or “to recite.” This was the command which the angel Gabriel supposedly asked Muhammad three times to do when he confronted him in July or August 610 C.E. in the Hira cave, situated three miles north-east of Mecca (Mishkat IV p.354).

According to Muslims the Qur’an is the final revelation from Allah. In Arabic the Qur’an is also referred to as ‘Al-Kitab’ (the book), ‘Al-furkan’ (the distinction), ‘Al-mas’haf’ (the scroll), and ‘Al-dikhr’ (the warning), as well as other names.

For those who like statistics, you may be interested to know that the Qur’an consists of 114 chapters (suras), made up of 30 parts, 6,616 verses (ayas), 77,943 words, and 338,606 letters. According to Islamic scholars 86 of the suras were revealed in Mecca, while 28 suras were revealed at Medina. Yet, as portions of some suras were recited in both places, you will continue to find a few of the scholars still debating the origins for a number of them. The suras vary in length and are known by a name or title, which are taken from the general theme of that sura, or a particular subject, person or event mentioned in it. This theme may not necessarily appear at the beginning of the sura, however.

Each verse or portion of the sura is known as an ‘aya’, which means “miracle” in Arabic. Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an was his sole miracle, though the Qur’an did not exist in its written form during his lifetime. In fact much of the controversy concerning the chronology of the Qur’an can be blamed on the fact that he was not around to verify its final collation. But more about that later. To begin with, let’s start with the question of revelation: how does Islam understand this concept, and could their view on it be one of the reasons we don’t see eye-to-eye concerning our two scriptures?

C: The Revelation of the Qur’an

Islam, like Christianity, believes that God (Allah) desires to communicate with humanity. But, unlike Christianity, Islam tells us that Allah is remote, so he must not reveal himself to humanity at a personal level. It is for that reason that Allah is forced to employ appointed prophets, who are known as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are mere humans and so finite, though they are given a special status, and consequently protected by God.

Because Allah is so transcendent and unapproachable, revelation in Islam is simply one-way: from God to humanity, via the prophets. While each prophet supposedly fulfilled his mission by producing a book, the final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is that given to the final prophet Muhammad: the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, Muslims believe, is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation, which are found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. Muslims point to sura 85:21-22 which says “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe that the Qur’an is an absolutely identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters is concerned (why modern translations still can’t agree what those divisions are is evident when trying to refer to an aya for comparison between one version and another).

According to Muslim tradition, these ‘revelations’ were sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens at the time of the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (‘lailat al Qadr’) (Pfander, 1910:262). From there it was revealed to Muhammad in instalments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and must be revered as such.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for nazil revelation of the Qur’an, comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. There are no outside witnesses before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony; nor are miracles provided to substantiate his claims.

In fact, the evidences for the authority of God’s revelation, which the Bible emphatically produces are completely absent in the Qur’an, namely, that the revelation of God must speak in the name of God, Yahweh, that the message must conform to revelation which has gone before, that it must make predictions which are verifiable, and that the revelation must be accompanied by signs and wonders in order to give it authority as having come from God. Because these are missing in the case of the prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, for those of us who are Christians, it seems indeed that it is the Qur’an and not the Bible which turns out to be the most human of documents.

Yet, Muslims continue to believe that the exact Arabic words which we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven. This, according to them, makes the Qur’an the “Mother of books” (refer to sura 43:3). Muslims believe there is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, in both suras 2:23 and 10:37-38 we find the challenge to, “Present some other book of equal beauty,” (a challenge which we will deal with later).

This final revelation, according to Islam, is transcendent, and consequently, beyond the capacity for conjecture, or criticism. What this means is that the Qur’an which we possess today is and has always been final and pure, which prohibits any possibility for verification or falsification of the text.

Because Allah is revered much as a master is to a slave, so his word is to be revered likewise. One does not question its pronouncements any more than one would question a masters pronouncements.

What then are we to do with the problems which do exist in the Qur’an? If it is such a transcendent book, as Muslims claim, then it should stand up to any criticism. Yet, what are we to do with the many contradictions, the factual errors and bizarre claims it makes? Furthermore, when we look more carefully at the text that we have in our possession today, which is supposedly that of Uthman’s final codification of the Qur’an, compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, from a copy of Hafsah’s manuscript, we are puzzled by the differences between it and the four co-existing codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy, all of which have deviations and deletions between them.

Another problem concerns its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we may not question its content, much of which, according to Muslim Tradition, originates from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years), and so consists of basic rules and regulations for social, economical, and political structures, many of which have been borrowed from existing legal traditions of the Byzantine and Persian cultures, leaving us with a seventh-ninth century document which has not been easily adapted to the twentieth century.

As Christians, this question is important. The Bible, by contrast is not simply a book of rigid rules and regulations which takes a particular historical context and absolutizes it for all ages and all peoples. Instead, we find in the Bible broad principles with which we can apply to each age and each culture (such as worship styles, music, dress, all of which can and are being contextualized in the variety of cultures which the church finds itself today).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies. Since we do not have a concept of Nazil revelation, we have no fear of delving into and trying to understand the context of what the author was trying to say (the process of historical analysis). But one would expect such from a revelation provided by a personal God who intended to be actively involved in the transmission of His revelation.

This, I feel is the crux of the problem between Islam’s and Christianity’s views on revelation.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God. That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.”

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.” This He does by means of prophets, who are sent with a specific word for a specific time, a specific place, and a specific people. Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable capacity to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken with humanity at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden. This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity. He took upon Himself the form of a human, spoke our language, used our forms of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we who are finite and human would better understand Him who is infinite and divine and beyond all human understanding.

As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2:

“God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.”

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified!

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. It is, for all practical purposes, a secondary revelation. It is simply the witness to the revelation of God. The Bible tells us about His life, mentioning what He said and did, and then expounds these teachings for the world today. It is merely a book which points to a person. Therefore, we can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself to truly understand who God is.

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the comforter, convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the truest revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us.

For Muslims this must sound confusing, and possibly threatening, as it brings God’s infinite revelation down from its transcendent pedestal, and presents it within the context of finite humanity. Perhaps to better explain this truth to them we may want to change tactics somewhat. Instead of comparing the Qur’an with the Bible, as most apologists tend to do, it might be helpful to compare the Qur’an with Jesus, as they are both considered to be the Word of God, and stand as God’s truest revelation to humanity.

The Bible (especially the New Testament), consequently, is the testimony of Jesus’s companions, testifying about what He said and did. To take this a step further, we could possibly compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira of the prophet and the Tafsir, all of which comment upon the history and teachings of the prophet and the Qur’an. While this may help us explain the Bible to a Muslim we must be careful to underline that though the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning how He lived. On the other hand the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with here and there interpretations of what he said.

In this light there is no comparison between the two revelations, Jesus and the Qur’an. The Qur’an, a mere book with all its faults and inadequacies, its very authenticity weakly resting on the shoulders of one finite man, who himself has few credentials as a prophet, is no match against Jesus, the man, revered by Muslims and Christians alike as sinless, who, according to His sinless Word is God Himself, and therefore, the perfect revelation.

It may be helpful to use this argument to introduce Jesus to a Muslim, rather then begin with His deity, as it explains the purpose of Jesus before attempting to define who He is; in other words explaining the why before the how.

D: The Inspiration of the Qur’an

That then leads us into the question of inspiration. We have already said that God (or Allah) requires agents in the form of prophets to communicate his truth to his creation. Yet how does Allah communicate his thoughts and will to these prophets? How is revelation carried out?

The Arabic term which best explains the process of revelation is the word ‘Wahy’, which can mean ‘divine inspiration.’ According to the Qur’an the primary aim of Wahy is two fold:

1. to prove Muhammad’s call to prophet-hood (according to suras 13:30 and 34:50), and

2. to give him authority to warn people (according to sura 6:19).

Concerning the inspiration of the previous prophets, we are told very little.

In sura 42:51 we find Wahy explained as such:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills, for He is most high, most wise.”

According to the above sura there are three methods by which Allah communicates to his creation:

1. by direct inspiration

2. from behind a veil and

3. through a messenger (the implication is that of an angelic being).

Since the Qur’an tells us little concerning how Muhammad received his revelations, we refer to those who compiled the Sira of the prophet, men like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Athir, and the Turkish writer ‘Ali Halabi to get a clearer insight. Their writings list seven forms of the experience of Wahy by Muhammad, some of which are quite revealing:

1. While the Wahy (inspiration) lasted, according to his wife Aisha, there were the sounds of bells ringing as he sweated profusely. He would become greatly perturbed and his face would change (Sahih Muslim). Muslim Tradition tells us that sometimes he would shiver and swoon, his mouth would foam, and he would roar like a camel (Mishkat IV p.359). At other times when the inspiration descended there was the sound near his face like the buzzing of bees (from ‘Umar ibnu’l Khattab), while at other times he felt a tremendous headache (from Abu Hurairah). Many times it seemed to his friends that he swooned and looked like someone intoxicated (Pfander 1910:346).

2. Wahy came to him in dreams.

3. Inspiration also came to him in visions while he was awake.

4. At times he saw an angel in the form of a young man (Pfander 1910:345).

5. At other times he saw angels in angelic form (sura 42:51).

6. During one evening (known as the Mi’raj) he was raptured through the Seven Heavens (according to the Hadith, Muhammad was taken to the highest heaven where he received the command to pray five times a day).

7. Allah spoke to him from behind a veil (sura 42:51).

When we look at all these examples of inspiration a picture begins to form, of a man who either had a vivid imagination, or was possessed, or suffered from a disease such as epilepsy. Muhammad, according to ‘Amr ibn Sharhabil, mentioned to his wife Khadijah that he feared he was possessed by demons and wondered whether others might consider him possessed by jinn
(Pfander 1910:345).

Even during his childhood Muhammad was afflicted with similar problems, causing concern to his friends who felt he had “become afflicted” (Pfander 1910:347).

Anyone acquainted with occult phenomena would be aware of the conditions of those who participate in seances. Occult phenomena in childhood, daydreams, the hearing of voices and calls, nightly meditations, excessive perspiration during trances and the subsequent exhaustion and swoon-like condition; as well as the ringing of bells are quite common. Even the
intoxicated condition resembles someone who is in a reasonably deep trance.

Also revealing is the report by Al Waqidi that Muhammad had such an aversion to the form of the cross that he would break everything brought into the house with a shape of the cross on it (Nehls 1990:61).

What we must ask is whether these manifestations point to true occurrences of inspiration, or whether they were simply a disease, or a condition of demonization? Historians inform us that certain great men (many of whom tended to be great warriors, such as Julius Caesar, the great Roman general, as well as the emperor Peter the Great of Russia, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor), all exhibited the same symptoms mentioned above. But none of them claimed to be prophets or apostles of God, nor did their followers offer them such status.

While we want to be careful not to revel in trivial speculation, we must remember that the above statements concerning Muhammad’s condition did not originate from sources outside of Islam. These were statements by his friends and relatives, and those who most firmly believed in his claim to be the seal of the prophets. I am not an expert on these matters, so I leave it to you to decide whether the facts which we have learned concerning the condition of Muhammad at the time he received his revelations, can lead us to the conclusion that what he received were truly inspired.

E: The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

Moving on, we now tackle the book itself, and ask whether its supposed qualities give it the right to claim a unique position alongside those of the previous scriptures.

E1: Its Holiness

While Muslims hold a high view for all Scriptures, including the Old and New Testaments, they demand a unique and supreme position for the Qur’an, claiming its ascendancy over all other scriptures, because, according to them, “initially, it was never written down by men and so was never tainted with men’s thoughts or styles.” As we mentioned earlier, it is often referred to as the “Mother of Books” (taken from sura 43:3).

Since the Qur’an is such a highly honoured book, it therefore is treated as if it, in itself, is holy. To enquire into its source is considered blasphemy. In most mosques which I have attended, no one would be permitted to let their Qur’an touch the floor. Instead, every individual was urged to use ornately decorated book-stands to rest their Qur’an on while reading from its contents. My Muslim friends were horrified to learn that Christians not only stacked Bibles alongside other lesser books, but that they wrote notes in the margins as well.

The function of the Qur’an, then, seems to be in opposition to that of the Bible. This points out another clear distinction between the two faiths view on revelation.

Take the example of an old man I met in a Pennsylvania mosque, who was highly revered due to his ability to quote, by memory, any passage from the Qur’an (and thus had the title of Hafiz). Yet, I never saw him lead any discussions on the Qur’an. A young Saudi Arabian man was given that responsibility. When I asked, “Why?” I was told that the old gentleman didn’t understand Arabic well (memorizing thus doesn’t command understanding).

It shocked me to find a man who had spent years memorizing the Qur’an, yet had no yearning to understand the content of its message. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims find little desire to translate their most holy book? Merit is found in the rote reading of the Qur’an in Arabic, and not in its message.

Another example is that of a friend of mine here in London who considered the Qur’an the epitome of beauty, and offered me certain suras as examples. Yet, when I asked him to translate the texts he could not.

Some of the Pakistani students at the university I attend who could quote certain passages, admired the beauty of the text, but had great difficulty in explaining the meaning. I found it disconcerting that the “beauty of the Qur’an” had such an influence, yet its “beauty” seemed, in fact, to discourage its understanding, which becomes an enemy to its mystique.

Here then is the key which points to the difference between the scriptures of the Christians and that of the Muslims. The fact that Muslims accord the Qur’an a place of reverence and worship, while memorizing its contents without necessarily understanding it, sparks of idolatry, the very sin (“Shirk”) which the Qur’an itself warns against, as it elevates an object to the same level of reverence as Allah (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

In much of the Muslim world leather amulets worn on the body are sold outside the mosques (sometimes called Giri-giri). Within these amulets one can find folded pieces of paper with an aya, or verse from the Qur’an written on them. These verses supposedly have power to ward off evil spirits and diseases. For these Muslims the very letters of the Qur’an are imbued with supernatural power.

Christianity stands against this view of God’s written word. We believe that the power and authority for the scriptures comes not from the paper it is written on, but from the words it expresses. We believe that the Bible is merely the testimony of God’s revelation to humanity, and so is not holy in and of itself. It is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Therefore, its importance lies in its content, rather than in its physical pages, just as a newspaper is read and thrown away, though the news it holds may remain imprinted on the readers mind for years to come.

Perhaps, the criticism by Muslims that Christians abuse the Bible is a result of this misunderstanding of its purpose. Once we understand the significance of the scriptures as nothing more than a repository of God’s word, we can then understand why Christians feel no injunction against writing in its margins, or against laying it on the floor (though most of the Christians I know would not do so out of respect for its message).

The high regard for the Qur’an carries over into other areas as well, some of which need to be discussed at this time.

E2: Its Superior Style

Many Muslims claim that the superiority of the Qur’an over all other revelations is due to its sophisticated literary style. They quote suras 10:37-38, or 2:23, or 17:88, which say: “Will they say ‘Muhammad hath forged it? Answer: “Bring therefore a chapter like unto it, and call whom ye may to your assistance, besides Allah, if ye speak truth.”

This boast is echoed in the Hadith (Mishkat III, pg.664), which says:

“The Qur’an is the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world… This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.”

Muslims conclude that since there is no literary equivalent in existence, this proves that the Qur’an is a “miracle sent down from God, and not simply written by any one man.”

Ironically, we now know that many stories and passages in the Qur’an were borrowed, sometimes word-for-word, and sometimes idea-for-idea, from Second century apocryphal documents of Jewish and Zoroastrian origin (to be discussed later in this paper).

To support this elevated belief in their scripture, many Muslim Qur’anic translators have an inclination to clothe their translations in a style that is rather archaic and ‘wordy,’ so that the average person must run to the dictionary to enquire their meanings. Yet, these translations were not conceived hundreds of years ago. This is merely a ploy by the translators to give the text an appearance of dignity and age which, they hope, will in turn inspire trustworthiness.

In response, we must begin by asking whether the Qur’an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from Muslim Tradition that the Qur’an which we have today was not written by Muhammad but was collated and then copied by a group of men who, fourteen to twenty years after the fact, took what they found from the memory of others, as well as verses which had been written on bones, leaves and stones and then burned all evidence of any other copies. Where is the miracle in that?

More current research is now eradicating even this theory. According to the latest data, the Qur’an was not a document which was even given to Muhammad. Much of what is included in the Qur’an were additions which slowly evolved over a period of 150-200 years, until they were made a canon sometime in the eighth or ninth century. If this is true, and it looks to be the best theory which we have to date, then the authority for the Qur’an as a miracle sent down from heaven is indeed very slim.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s ask whether the Qur’an can be considered unique in its style and makeup.

The logic of the claim to its uniqueness, according to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, is spurious as:

“… It no more proves its inspiration than a man’s strength demonstrates his wisdom, or a woman’s beauty, her virtue. Only by its teachings, its principles, and content can a book be judged rightly; not by its eloquence, elegance, or poetic strength” (Shorrosh 1988:192).

Furthermore, one must ask what criteria is used for measuring one literary piece against the other. In every written language there must be a “best piece” of literature. Take for example the: Rig-Veda of India (1,000- 1,500 B.C.), or the eloquent poems in Greek, the Odyssey and the Iliad by Homer, or the Gilgamesh Epic, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead from Egypt, all which are considered classic masterpieces, and all of which predate the Qur’an.

Closer to home: would we compare Shakespeare’s works against that of the Qur’an? No! They are completely different genres. Yet, while few people today dispute the fact that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are the best written in the English language, no-one would claim they were therefore divine.

To show the futility of such an argument, it would not take a very brilliant person to quote from classical pieces of literature in rebuttal. They could use such examples as the prayer written by Francis of Assisi (from the 12th century), or the prayer of Thomas Aquinas (in the 13th century), or portions of our own scripture, such as the 23rd Psalm and other Psalms, or even point to the imagery found in the gospel of John, or the sophistication evidenced in the letter to the Romans, or the chapter on Love in 1 Corinthians 13. These could all make the claim to be superior to the Qur’an and some of them definitely are, but that is not the point. We know the authors of each of these pieces of literature, humble men all; men who would shudder if we would consider their writings somehow elevated to that of the divine.

To make this distinction more clear, compare for example:

1. sura 76:29-30 (sura or 16:93) and I Timothy 2:4, Luke 15:3-4, John 10:14,18.

2. sura 111 and Francis of Assisi’s prayer (see Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims, example no.11, pg.75).

3. suras 4:74,84; 5:33; 48:16-17 and Matthew 5:3-12. sura 109 and Psalm 23.

4. sura 24:2 and John 8:3-12.

5. suras 2:222-223; 4:11,24,34,176 and Ephesians 5:22-25.

6. sura 9:29 and I Corinthians 13:4-7.

7. sura 33:53, 56-57 and Matthew 20:25-28.

8. suras 55:46-60; 56:22-26,35-38 and Revelation 21:1-8, 22-27; 22:1-6.

You may feel that the selection of the suras has been unfavorable in contrast to the quotations from the Bible and the prayer, and you are correct. But you must remember that the claim of the Qur’an is to “produce a chapter like it.” A chapter would mean any chapter, and certainly, as I have done here, those chapters which are similar in kind and content.

I am aware that the reverse could be done, that Biblical texts could be taken and opposed in similar fashion, but for what purpose? We make no claim, as has the Qur’an, that the Bible is superior to all pieces of literature.

In fact many statements and events described in the Bible are historical records, including quotations uttered by opponents of God, which do not necessarily reflect the consent, thought and will of God. Taken out of context such texts can and frequently are abused to support just about any view or opinion. Our intent here is to consider whether indeed the Qur’an has a superior style, such that it is unique among the scriptures of God. From what you now know, you, then, must decide.

E3: Its Literary Qualities

But what about the Qur’an’s supposed literary qualities?

While Christian or secular Arabic speakers are likely to appreciate the Qur’an’s poetic qualities, when anyone who is familiar with the Bible picks up a Qur’an and begins to read it through, there is the immediate recognition that he or she is dealing with an entirely different kind of literature than what is found in the Bible.

Whereas the Bible contains much historical narrative, the Qur’an contains very little. Whereas the Bible goes out of its way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Qur’an remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Bible, consisting of a library of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 years, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject and theme.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, interposed many times with little relationship to the preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that it is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it!

The German secular scholar Salomon Reinach in his harsh analysis, states that:

“From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it.” (Reinach 1932:176)

McClintock and Strong’s encyclopedia concludes that:

The matter of the [Koran] is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered. (McClintock and Strong 1981:151)

Even the Muslim scholar Dashti laments the literary defects of the Qur’an, saying:

“Unfortunately the Qur’an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged.”

He concludes that:

“All students of the Qur’an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation, as in ‘Ali ibn Taleb’s lost copy of the text” [Dashti 1985:28].

When reading a Qur’an, you will discover that the 114 suras not only have odd names for titles (such as the Cow, the Spoils, the Bee, or the Cave), but their layout is not at all in a chronological order. Size or length had more to do with the sequence of the suras than any other factor, starting with the longer suras and ending with the shortest. Even within the suras we find a mixed chronology. At times there is a mixture of Meccan and Medinan revelations within the same sura, so that even size is not an infallible guide in dating them.

Another problem is that of repetition. The Qur’an was intended to be memorized by those who were illiterate and uneducated since they could not read it. It therefore engages in the principal of endless repetition of the same material over and over again [Morey 1991:110]. This all leads to a good bit of confusion for the novice reader, and gives rise to much suspicion concerning its vaunted literary qualities.

In contrast to the Bible, which was written over several hundred years by a variety of authors, and flows easily from the creation of the world right through to the prophecies concerning the end of the universe; the Qur’an, supposedly written by just one man, Muhammad, during a span of a mere 20 years, seems to go nowhere and say little outside of the personal and political affairs of himself and his companions at one particular time in history.

With no logical connection from one sura to the next, one is left with a feeling of incompleteness, waiting for the story to give some meaning. Is it no wonder that many find it difficult to take seriously the claim by the Hadith that the Qur’an is “a book second to none in the world,” worthy of divine inspiration?

E4: Its Pure Arabic

Muslims believe that the Arabic language is the language of Allah. They also believe that the Qur’an, because it is perfect, is the exact representation of Allah’s words. For that reason only the Arabic Qur’an can be considered as authoritative. It, therefore, follows that those who do not know Arabic are still required to read and memorize the Qur’an in the Arabic language, as translations can never replace the language of Allah. Yet, is the Qur’an the Arabic document which Muslims claim it to be?

The answer is unequivocally “NO!” There are many foreign words or phrases which are employed in the Qur’an, some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others which do.

Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the [Koran], has gathered some 300 pages dealing with foreign words in the Qur’an, many of which must have been used in pre-Qur’anic Arabic, but quite a number also which must have been used little or not at all before they were included in the Qur’an. One must wonder why these words were borrowed, as it puts doubt on whether “Allah’s language” is sufficient enough to explain and reveal all that Allah had intended. Some of the foreign words include:

1. Pharaoh: an Egyptian word which means king or potentate, which is repeated in the Qur’an 84 times.

2. Adam and Eden: Accadian words which are repeated 24 times. A more correct term for “Adam” in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning “mankind.” “Eden” would be the word janna in Arabic, which means “garden.”

3. Abraham (sometimes recorded as Ibrahim): comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent would be Abu Raheem.

4. Persian words

   1. Haroot and Maroot are Persian names for angels.

   2. Sirat meaning “the path” has the Arabic equivalent, Altareeq.

   3. Hoor meaning “disciple” has the Arabic equivalent, Tilmeeth.

   4. Jinn meaning “good or evil demons” has the Arabic equivalent, Ruh.

   5. Firdaus meaning “the highest or seventh heaven” has the Arabic equivalent, Jannah.

5. Syriac words: Taboot, Taghouth, Zakat, Malakout are all Syriac words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

6. Hebrew words: Heber, Sakinah, Maoon, Taurat, Jehannim, Tufan (deluge) are all Hebrew words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

7. Greek words: Injil, which means “gospel” was borrowed, yet it has the Arabic equivalent, Bisharah. Iblis is not Arabic, but a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos.

8. Christian Aramaic: Qiyama is the Aramaic word for resurrection.

9. Christian Ethiopic: Malak (2:33) is the Ethiopic word for angel.

F: The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

Another claim by Muslims for the authority of the Qur’an is its universal application for all people and for all time. Yet is this the case?

There are many who believe that the Qur’an follows so closely the life and thought of the Arab world during the 7th-9th centuries, that indeed it was written for that specific environment, and not as a universal document for all peoples. suras 16:103; 26:195; and 42:7 point to its uniquely Arabic character.

In fact, the Qur’an, rather than being a universal document served to provide personal advantages for Muhammad. Examples of this can be found in suras: 33:36-38 (Zayd and Zaynab), 50-52 (rotation of wives and special privilege of Muhammad), 53-54 (privacy of Muhammad, and non marriage to his widows) and 66:1 (abstaining from wives or honey?-see Yusuf Ali’s note no.5529). Why would a document written for the benefit of all of humanity refer to personal incidents of one man? Do we find similar examples in the previous scriptures and prophets?

Indeed, it seems that Muhammad was the right prophet for the Arabs. He took their culture and universalized it. Take for instance these three examples:

1. The Arabs gloried in their language; Muhammad declared it the divine language, maintaining that the everlasting tablets in heaven recorded the original revelations in the Arabic script. Yet, he seemed to forget the fact that all the previous scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek and not Arabic.

2. The Arabs gloried in their traditional practices and customs of the desert; practices such as predatory war, slavery, polygamy, and concubinage. Muhammad impressed upon all these usages the seal of a divine sanction. Yet it is these very areas which have proved such a stumbling-block to the western world ever since, as they reflect little of the ethos of the preceding scriptures; an ethos which guides the laws and practices of much of the modern world today.

3. The Arabs gloried in the holiness of Mecca. Muhammad made it the only portal whereby men could enter paradise. Yet there is no extra-Qur’anic documentation that Mecca was much more than a small nondescript hamlet until well into the 7th century. It was not situated on the coast, nor did it have an adequate water supply, like its neighbour Taif, which, unlike Mecca, was well-known as a rest-stop on the caravan routes.

Therefore, one can say that Muhammad took the Arab people just as he found them, and while he applied some new direction, he declared much that they did to be very good and sacred from change (Shorrosh 1988:180).

There are other examples of a specific Arabic influence on the Qur’an; two of which are the status of women, and the use of the sword.

F1: The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

Women in the Qur’an have an inferior status to that of men. While the Qur’an permits women to participate in battle, it also allows a Muslim husband to cast his wife adrift without giving a single reason or notice, while the same right is not reserved for the woman. The husband possesses absolute, immediate, and unquestioned power of divorce (suras 2:224-230 and 33:49).

Women are to be absolutely obedient, and can be beaten (or scourged) for being rebellious in sura 4:34 (Yusuf Ali adds “lightly,” yet the Arabic does not allow this inclusion). No privilege of a corresponding nature is reserved for the wife. Men have double the inheritance of women (sura 4:11,176). In addition to the four wives allowed by law, a Muslim man can have an unlimited number of slave girls as concubines (or sexual partners) according to sura al-Nisa 4:24-25.

Even paradise creates inequalities for women. suras 55:56; 56:36 and 78:33 state that paradise is a place where there are beautiful young virgins waiting to serve the “righteous” (sura 78:31). These virgins, we are told, will have beautiful, big, lustrous eyes (sura 56:22); they will be Maidens who are chaste, who avert their eyes out of purity (sura 55:56, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5210), and have a delicate pink complexion (sura 55:58, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5211). Nowhere are we told what awaits the Muslim women of this world in paradise: the Muslim mothers and sisters. One wonders who these virgin maidens are, and where they come from?

With Qur’anic pronouncements such as we have read in the preceding chapters it is not surprising that much of the Muslim world today reflects in its laws and societal makeup such a total bias against women?

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the twenty-three countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only ten to twenty percent of all workers), seventeen are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the eleven countries with the worst record for disparagement of opportunity between men and women, ten are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in three Muslim countries: Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57).

Another revealing statistic shows that of the twelve states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, seven are Muslim states. The bottom three listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

While one may justifiably argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries, using the Qur’an as their foundation treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

With this kind of data before us we need to ask whether the Qur’an is God’s absolute word for all people for all time, and if so, then why only half of the world’s population (its males) receive full benefit from its laws, while the other half (its women) continue in an unequal relationship?

Does not the previous revelation, the Bible, have a more universalistic and wholesome concern for women? Take for instance Ephesians 5:22-25 where we find the true ideal for a relationship, saying: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.” This scripture demands a sacrificial love by the husband, one which puts the interests of the loved one before that of his own. This sacrificial love is best explained in 1 Corinthians 13:1,4-8.

It is understandable, then, why so many people in the West see Islam as an archaic and barbaric religion, which forces people back into the mentality of the middle ages, where women had no rights or freedoms to create their own destiny, and where men could do with their wives as they pleased.

F2: The “Sword” Found in the Qur’an

Concerning the ‘sword’ in the Qur’an, the testimony of Islam today is that of a religion which condones violence for the sake of Allah.

Though many Muslims try to deny this, they have to agree that there are ample examples of violence found not only within the Qur’an, but also exemplified within the life of the prophet Muhammad.

While in Mecca, Muhammad was surrounded by enemies, and while there he taught his followers toleration, according to sura 2:256, which says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error…” As a minor player, surrounded by enemies he did well to receive this ‘convenient’ revelation. But the call for toleration changed when his power was established in Medina, once the charter had been written which regulated life between the various differing groups.

Muhammad needed a livelihood for himself and those who had come with him from Mecca. Thus he undertook a number of “expeditions,” sending groups of his soldiers out to raid Meccan caravans in order to find booty.

Though there was a rule in the Hijaz at that time not to fight during the “holy month,” Muhammad, nonetheless sent a number of his troops to raid an unsuspecting trading caravan. This caused havoc in his own camp because a Meccan had been killed in the month in which bloodshed was forbidden. Promptly another ‘convenient revelation’ came which authorized the attack (read sura 2:217).

Later on, in 624 C.E., after having been in Medina for two years, a Meccan caravan of 1,000 men was passing close to the south-west of Medina. Muhammad, with only 300 men went out to attack it at the battle of Badr. He defeated the Meccans, and consequently received tremendous status, which helped his army grow.

The Medinans participated in further battles, some of which they won (i.e. the battle of the trenches) and others which they lost (the battle of Uhud). In fact, Muhammad himself is known to have conducted 27 battles and planned 39 others.

Muslims, however, continue to downplay any emphasis on violence within the Qur’an, and they emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War was only a means of defence, and was never used as an offensive act. Sahih Muslim III makes this point, saying, “the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity” (Sahih Muslim III, pg.938).

In the Mishkat II we find an explanation for Jihad:

“[Jihad] is the best method of earning both spiritual and temporal. If victory is won, there is enormous booty and conquest of a country which cannot be equalled to any other source of earnings. If there is defeat or death, there is ever-lasting Paradise and a great spiritual benefit. This sort of Jihad is conditional upon pure motive, i.e. for establishing the kingdom of Allah on earth (Mishkat II, pg.253) Also in Mishkat II we learn with regard to Jihad, that: Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said: To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger, and the remainder is for you (Muslim, Mishkat II, pg.412).”

The claim that Muslims acted only in self-defense is simply untrue. What were Muslims defending in North Africa, or Spain, France, India, Persia, Syria, Anatolia or the Balkans? These countries all had previous civilizations, many of which were more sophisticated than that of Islam, yet they all (outside of France) fell during the conquests of Islam in the first few hundred years, and their cultures were soon eradicated by that of Islam. Does that not evidence a rather offensive interpretation for Jihad?

We can understand the authority for this history when we read certain passages from the Qur’an, which, itself stipulates a particularly strong use of violence. The full impact of invective against the unbeliever can be found in sura 9:5 which says, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…” Of like nature is sura 47:4 which says, “When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…”

Similarly sura 9:29 states: “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden… until they pay tribute…” And in sura 8:39 we find, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression. And there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”

The murder of between 600-700 Banu Kuraiza Medinan Jewish males by the sword, and the slavery of their women give testimony to this sura (Nehls pg.117)

According to the Dictionary of Islam we read:

“When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim statethe payment of Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained “protection” and became Dhimmis, provided they were not idolaters, anddeath by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax.”

(Dictionary of Islam, pg.243).

War is sanctioned in Islam, with enormous rewards promised to those who fight for Allah, according to sura 4:74. Later in verse 84, Muhammad gives himself the divine order to fight. This is the verse which is the basis for calling Islam “the religion of the sword” (Shorrosh 1988:174).

In sura 5:33 the Qur’an orders those who fight Allah and his messenger to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off; or they can be expelled out of the land. In sura 48:16-17, we read that all who die “fighting in the ways of the Lord” (Jihad) are richly rewarded, but those who retreat are sorely punished.

The first blood shed under Muhammad was carried out by a blind disciple named Umair, who stabbed and killed a woman named Asma while she slept suckling her baby because she had criticized Muhammad with poetic verses. Upon hearing of this Muhammad said “Behold a man that hath assisted the Lord and His prophet. Call him not blind, call him rather ‘Umair,’ the seeing.” (Nehls pg.122).

Therefore, when those of us who are Christians read these suras, and see the example of the prophet himself, we find a total rejection of the previous teachings of Jesus who calls us to live in peace and put away the sword. We then are incredulous when we hear Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace. The record speaks for itself.

For those countries who aspire to use Islamic law, statistics prove revealing. According to the 1994 State of the World Atlas, while only five northern countries (i.e. western) are categorized as “Terror States” (those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture), twenty-eight of the thirty-two Muslim states fall into this category (except UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63).

Furthermore, it seems that most Muslim countries today are following the example of their prophet and are involved in some sort of armed conflict. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the western countries, yet only four Muslim countries out of the thirty-two have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only six out of the thirty-two have offered a list of sex offenses, and only four of the thirty-two have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate the claim which they make: that western states have a higher degree of degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the fourteen countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” nine of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-western Christian country.

Why, we wonder, are so many Muslim countries embroiled in so many wars, many of which are against other Muslims? Muslims answer that these are not good examples because they are not authentic Muslim states. Yet, can we not say that to the contrary, these countries do indeed follow the examples which we find so readily not only within the text of the Qur’an, but within the life of the prophet, and in the history of the first few centuries of Islam. Muhammad’s life, and the Qur’an which he gave to the world, both give sufficient authority for the sword in Islam. While this may cause the 20th century western Muslim to squirm uncomfortably, it cannot be denied that there is ample precedent for violence within their scriptures and within their own history. What we choose to ask, however, is whether the witness of violence within Islam exemplifies the heart of a loving and compassionate God, one who calls Himself merciful; or whether it rather exemplifies the character of 7th century Arabia, with all its brutal desert tribal disputes and warfare?

Compare the opposing concept of Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one kilometre, go with him two kilometres. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:38-44)

So what can we say about the authority of the Qur’an? Can we say it is a divinely inspired book sent by Allah for all of humanity, for all time? Can it claim supernatural as well as literary qualities, which not only place it above other revelations, but point to its divine origins? Much of what I have offered you here points to the fact that the Qur’an lacks in all three qualities, and seems to reflect more the life and times of its supposed mediator than that of the heart of a universal God. The idolatrous tendency of Muslims towards the Qur’an, as well as the confusion of its literary makeup, and the special conditions given to Muhammad, point to a book put together by one man, or as we now know, a group of much later men, than an inspired piece of God’s revealed word.

If one were to contrast the 66 books of the Bible written over hundreds of years by at least 40 different authors, with the Qur’an which came through one man, Muhammad, during his lifetime, there would be no contest as to which was the superior literature. In the final analysis, the Qur’an simply does not fit the breadth of vision, nor the literary style or structure of that found in the Old and New Testament. To go from the Bible to the Qur’an is to go from the superior to the inferior, from the authentic to the counterfeit, from God’s perspective to that of an individual, caught up and controlled by his own world and times.

I end this section with a quote from an expert on the Qur’an, Dr. Tisdall, who says:

“The Qur’an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.” (Tisdall 27)

G: The Collation, or Collection, of the Qur’anic Text

We now take the discussion concerning the authority for the Qur’an away from its makeup and ask the question of how it came to us. We will give special emphasis on the problems which we find with its collation. We will also ask why, if it is the Word of God, so much of its content is not only self-contradictory, but is in error with the facts as we know them? From there we will then consider where the Qur’an received much of its material, or from where many of its stories were derived. Let’s then begin with the alleged collection of the Qur’anic text.

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect in its textual history, that there are no textual defects (as they say we have in our Bible). They maintain that it is perfect not only in its content and style, but the order and script as we have it today is an exact parallel of the preserved tablets in heaven. This, they contend, is so because Allah has preserved it.

Therefore, the Qur’an, they feel, must be the Word of God. While we have already looked at the content and style of the Qur’an and found it wanting, the claim to its textual purity is an assertion which we need to examine in greater detail.

G1: The Periods of Revelation

According to Muslim Tradition the “revelations” of the suras (or books) were received by the prophet Muhammad, via the angel Jibril (Gabriel) within three periods. The first is referred to as the 1st Meccan period, and lasted between 611-615 C.E. During this time the suras contain many of the warnings, and much of the leading ideas concerning who Allah is, and what He expected of His creation (i.e. suras 1, 51-53, 55-56, 68-70, 73-75, 77-97, 99-104, 111-114).

The 2nd period, referred to as the 2nd Meccan period (between 616-622 C.E.) had longer suras, dealing with doctrines, many of which echoed Biblical material. It was during this time that Islam makes the claim of being the one true religion (i.e. suras 6-7, 10-21, 23, 25-32, 34-46, 50, 54, 67, 71-72, 76).

The third period, referred to as the Medinan period (between 623-632 C.E.) centered in Medina and lasted roughly ten years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. There is a distinct shift in content during this period. Divine approval is given for Muhammad’s leadership, and much of the material deals with local historical events. There is a change from the preaching of divine matters, to that of governing. Consequently, the suras are much more political and social in their makeup (suras 2-5, 8-9, 22-24, 33, 37, 47-49, 57-59, 60-66, 98, 110).

G2: The Method of Collection

While there is ongoing discussion concerning whether Muhammad ever received any revelations, there is considerably more skepticism concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have today is indeed made up entirely of those revelations which he did supposedly receive.

Many Muslims ardently contend that the Qur’an which is in our hands today was in its completed form even before the death of Muhammad, and that the collation of the texts after his death was simply an exercise in amassing that which had already existed. There are even those who believe that many of the companions of the prophet had memorized the text, and it is they who could have been used to corroborate the final collation by Muhammad’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit. If these assertions are true, then indeed we do have a revelation which is well worth studying. History, however, points to quite a different scenario, one which most Muslims find it difficult to maintain.

Muslim Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so had made no preparations for the gathering of his revelations, in order to place them into one document. Thus, according to tradition, it was left up to Muhammad’s followers to write down what had been said.

Al Bukhari, a Muslim scholar of the 9th-10th century, and the most authoritative of the Muslim tradition compilers, writes that whenever Muhammad fell into one of his unpredictable trances his revelations were written on whatever was handy at the time. The leg or thigh bones of dead animals were used, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, and bark. And when there was nothing at hand the attempt was made by his disciples to memorize it as closely as possible.

The principle disciples at that time were: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, all of whom were close companions of Muhammad.

According to Sahih Bukhari, during the years following Muhammad’s death, passages of the Qur’an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur’an’s automatic completion as a revelation, now that its mediator had passed away, compelled a companion of the prophet named Hazrat Omar to suggest to the current caliph, Abu Bakr, that the existing revelations be collected.

Initially the aging caliph demurred, as he was not willing to do what the prophet had not done. However, he later changed his mind, due to the crisis caused by the death of the reciters at Yamama. The secretary of Muhammad, Zaid ibn Thabit was commissioned by Abu Bakr to collect the sayings of the prophet and put them into a document.

G2i: Zaid’s Collection

Zaid’s reply, according to Bukhari, is interesting. He is purported to have said that it would have been easier if they had demanded that he shift a mountain then collect the suras of the Qur’an. The reason for this rather odd statement becomes obvious when we find that, in his search for the passages of the Qur’an he was forced to use as his sources the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, bark, and the memories of the prophet’s companions (Bukhari, vol.6, pg.477).

This shows that there were no Muslims at that time who had memorized the entire Qur’an by heart, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an by heart, Zaid would only have had to go to any one of the companions and write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from these men who had memorized certain segments. He also had to refer to rather strange objects to find the ayas he needed. These are hardly reliable sources for a supposed “perfect” copy of the eternal tablets which exist in heaven.

What evidence, we ask, is there that his final copy was complete? It is immediately apparent that the official copy of the Qur’an rested on very fragile sources. There is no way that anyone can maintain with certainty that Zaid collected all the sayings of the prophet. Had some of the objects been lost, or thrown away? Did some of the ayas die with the companions who were killed at the battle of Yamama? We are left with more questions then answers.

In Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, page 478) Zaid is quoted as saying that he found the last verses of sura 9 (verses 128 and 129) from a certain individual. Then he continues by saying that he found this verse from no-one else. In other words there was no-one else who knew this verse. Thus had he not traced it from this one man, he would not have traced it at all!

This leads us to only one possible conclusion: that we can never be sure that the Qur’an which was finally compiled was, in fact, complete! Zaid concedes that he had to find this one verse from this one man. This underlines the fact that there was no-one who knew the Qur’an by heart, and thus could corroborate that Zaid’s copy was complete.

Consequently the final composition of the Qur’an depended on the discretion of one man; not on the revelation of God, but on an ordinary fallible man, who put together, with the resources which he had available, what he believed to be a complete Qur’an. This flies in the face of the bold claim by Muslims that the book is now, and was then, complete.

Zaid’s text was given to Hafsah, one of the wives of Muhammad, and the daughter of Umar, the 2nd Caliph. We then pick up the story with the reign of Uthman, the 3rd Caliph.

G2ii: Competing Collections

In Sahih Bukhari, (vol. 6, pg.479) we read that there were at this time different readings of the Qur’an in the different provinces of the Muslim world. A number of the companions of Muhammad had compiled their own codices of the text. In other words, though Zaid had collated the official text under Abu Bakr, there were other texts which were circulating which were considered
authoritative as well.

The two most popular codices were those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, whose  manuscript became the standard for the area of Iraq, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, whose manuscript became standard in Syria.

These and other extant codices were basically consistent with each other in their general content, but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts such that no two codices were entirely the same (which we’ll talk about later).

In addition, the texts were being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world. During the 7th century, Arabic was composed in a so-called scriptio defectiva in which only the consonants were written. Since there was no vowels, the vocalization was left to the reader. Some verbs could be read as active or passive, while some nouns could be read with different case endings, and some forms could be read as either nouns or verbs.

G3: The Standardization of One Text

Consequently, during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph, a deliberate attempt was made to standardize the Qur’an and impose a single text upon the whole Muslim community.

The codex of Zaid ibn Thabit, taken from the manuscript of Hafsah, was chosen by Uthman for this purpose, to the consternation of both Mas’ud and Ibn Ka’b. Zaid ibn Thabit was a much younger man, who had not yet been born at the time Mas’ud had recited 70 suras by heart before Muhammad.

According to Muslim tradition Zaid’s codice was chosen by Uthman because the language used, the ‘Quraishi dialect,’ was local to Mecca, and so had become the standard Arabic. Tradition maintains that Zaid, along with three scholars of the Quraishi tribe of Mecca, had written the codice in this Quraishi dialect, as it had been revealed to Muhammad in this dialect. Linguists today, however, are still at a quandary to know what exactly this Quraishi dialect was, as it doesn’t exist today and therefore cannot be identified. Furthermore, the dialect which we find in the present Qur’an does not differ from the language which was current in other parts of the Hijaz at that time. While it makes for a good theory, it has little historical evidence with which to back it up.

A further reason for the choice of Zaid’s codice, according to tradition, was that it had been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, and so had not attracted the publicity as one of the varying texts, as had the codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Ironically, by virtue of their popularity, Mas’ud’s and Ka’b’s codices were rejected as sources for the final Qur’an and supplanted by the codice of an individual who neither had the notoriety, nor the experience, and whose text (as we shall soon discover) had never been selected as authoritative by the prophet, as had the other two.

Consequently, copies of Zaid’s codice were then sent out and dispersed throughout every Muslim province, while all the other manuscripts were summarily destroyed.

It is evident from this discussion that the final choice for an authoritative text had little to do with its authenticity, but had more to do with the fact that it was not a controversial manuscript. It is also evident that there were no two Qur’ans which existed at that time which were exactly alike. This tradition tells us that other whole copies did exist, yet not one of the other texts were spared the order for their destruction. We must conclude that the destruction of the other manuscripts was a drastic effort to standardize the Qur’anic text. While we may have one standard text today, there is no proof that it corresponds with the original. We can only say that it may possibly be similar to the Uthmanic recension, a recension which was one of many. Yet, what evidence is there that in all instances it was the correct one? We don’t know as we have no others with which to compare.

G4: The Missing Verses

This then brings up another difficult problem: how can we be sure that what Zaid ibn Thabit included in his codice (or manuscript) contained the full revelation of Muhammad’s revelation? The fact is we simply cannot. We are forced to rely on Muslim tradition to tell us. Yet, interestingly, it is Muslim tradition which informs us that Zaid himself initially cast doubt on his own codice.

G4i: Sura 33:23

According to Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, pg.79), despite the fact that Zaid’s text had been copied out and sent to the seven different cities, Zaid suddenly remembered that a verse which the prophet had quoted earlier was missing from his text. Zaid is quoted as saying that this missing verse was verse 23 of sura 33, which says, “Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.” So he searched for the verse until he found it with Hussaima ibn al Ansari.

Thus, we find that after the copies had been sent out claiming to be the only authentic and complete copies of the Qur’an available, Zaid, and he alone, recorded a verse which was missing; a verse which, once again, was only found with one man. This resembles the previous occasion where a verse was only found with one man.

The conclusion is obvious: initially all of those seven copies which were sent out to the provinces were imperfect. But even more concerning is the fact that it was due to the recollection of one man, and the memory of another that the Qur’an was finally completed. Once again it is obvious that there simply could not have been any man at that time who knew the whole Qur’an by heart. This is yet another instance which contradicts the argument posed by Muslims that the Qur’an had been memorized by certain men during the early days of Islam.

But of more importance is the troubling question of whether there were perhaps other verses which were overlooked or were left out. The answer to this question can be found in another of the authoritative traditions, that of Sahih Muslim.

G4ii: The Verse on Stoning

Muslim maintains that key passages were missing from Zaid’s text. The most famous is the verse of stoning. All the major traditions speak of this missing verse. According to Ibn Ishaq’s version (pg. 684) we read:

“God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, ‘We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.”

Therefore, according to Umar, the stoning verse was part of the original Qur’an, the revelation which Allah sent down. But now it is missing. In many of the traditions we find numerous reports of adulterous men and women who were stoned by the prophet and his companions. Yet today we read in the Qur’an, sura 24:32 that the penalty for adultery is 100 lashes. Umar said adultery was not only a capital offence, but one which demanded stoning. That verse is now missing from the Qur’an, and that is why Umar raised this issue.

Muslims will need to ask themselves whether indeed their Qur’an can claim to be the same as that passed down by Muhammad to his companions? With evidence such as this the Qur’an in our possession today becomes all the more suspect.

G5: The Variations Between the Codices

Yet that is not all. Another glaring problem with Zaid’s text is that it differed from the other codices which coexisted with his.

Arthur Jeffery has done the classic work on the variants of the early codices in his book Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an, printed in 1937. The three main codices which he lists are those which we have referred to earlier, and include:

1. Ibn Mas’ud (‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud) (died 653), from Kufa, in Iraq. It is he who is reported to have learned 70 suras directly from Muhammad, and was appointed by Muhammad as one of the first teachers of Qur’anic recitation (according to Ibn Sa’d). Mas’ud became a leading authority on the Qur’an and hadith in Kufa, Iraq. He refused to destroy his copy of the Qur’an or stop teaching it when the Uthmanic recension was made official.

2. Ubayy b. Ka’b (died 649) a Medinan Muslim who was associated with Damascus, Syria. Prior to that he was a secretary for the prophet, and was considered by some to be more prominent than Mas’ud in Qur’anic understanding, during the prophet’s lifetime. Ubayy’s codice had two extra suras. He destroyed his codice after the Uthmanic recension.

3. Abu Musa (died 662), a Yemenite, though his codice was accepted in Basra, where he served as governor under Umar. His codex was large and it contained the two extra suras of Ubayy’s codex, and other verses not found in other codices (Jeffery, pp.209-211).

In addition to these three Jeffery classifies 12 other codices belonging to the companions of the prophet, which were considered as primary.

One of these Ali b. Abi Talib (d.661) a cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, is said to have been the first to collect the Qur’an after the prophet’s death, and to have arranged the suras in some sort of chronological order.

According to Jeffery, there were thousands of variations between the different codices.

G5i: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

Take for instance the codice of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, a very close companion of the prophet, according to the traditions. As we know it was he who refused to hand over his manuscript after the order went out from Uthman for all existing copies to be burned.

There is much evidence today to show that, in fact, his text is far more reliable than Hafsah’s manuscript, which we know to be the one collated by Zaid ibn Thabit. Ibn Mas’ud alone was present with Muhammad when he reviewed the content of the Qur’an every year during the month of Rammadan.

In the well-known collection of traditions by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.441), we read these words:

“Ibn Abbas asked, ‘Which of the two readings of the Qur’an do you prefer?’ [The prophet] answered, ‘The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.’ Verily the Qur’an was recited before the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas’ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.”

Thus no-one knew the Qur’an better then he did. In the same tradition by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.442) it says:

“No sura was revealed but I [Mas’ud] knew about it and what was revealed. If I had known anyone knowing more of the book of Allah than me, I would have gone to him.”

Ibn Mas’ud lays claim here to be the foremost authority of the text of the Qur’an. In fact, it is Sahih Muslim (vol. 4, pg.1312) who informs us that Mas’ud knew seventy suras by heart, and was considered to have a better understanding of the Qur’an then the other companions of the prophet. He recited these seventy passages before the prophet and the companions, and no-one disputed with him.

In Sahih Bukhari (vol. 5, pgs.96-97) we read that Muhammad himself singled out Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as the first and foremost authority on the Qur’an.

According to Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.444) Mas’ud learned his seventy suras while Zaid was still a youth. Thus his authority should have been greater as he knew so much of the Qur’an long before Zaid became a man.

Arthur Jeffery in his book points out several thousand variants taken from over thirty “main sources.” Of special note are those which he found between the codex of Ibn Mas’ud and that of Zaid ibn Thabit. He also found that Mas’ud’s codex agreed with the other codices which existed at the expense of Zaid’s text (while we don’t have the time to go into all the variations, it might be helpful if you could obtain a copy of Arthur Jeffrey’s book: Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an).

According to Jeffery, Abu Mas’ud’s Codex was different from the Uthmanic text in several different ways:

1. It did not contain the Fatiha (the opening sura, sura 1), nor the two charm suras (suras 113 and 114).

2. It contained different vowels within the same consonantal text (Jeffery 25-113).

3. It contained Shi’ite readings (i.e. suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19) (Jeffery 40,65,68).

4. Entire phrases were different, such as:

   1. sura 3:19: Mas’ud has “The way of the Hanifs” instead of “Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam.”

   2. sura 3:39: Mas’ud has “Then Gabriel called to him, ‘O Zachariah'”, instead of the Uthmanic reading: “Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary.”

   3. Only his codice begins sura 9 with the Bismilah, while the Uthmanic text does not (“bismi ‘llahi ‘l-rahmani ‘l-rahim” meaning, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”).

5. Finally, the order of the suras in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex is different from the Uthmanic text in that Mas’ud’s list arranges the suras more closely in order of descending length.

G5ii: Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

Ubayy Ka’b’s codex also had variations. Though there are those who disagree, it seems to have been less important than Ibn Mas’ud’s, as it was not the source of any secondary codices.

It included two suras not found in the Uthmanic or Ibn Mas’ud’s texts: the surat al-Khal’, with three verses, and surat al-Hafd, with six verses (Jeffery pg. 180ff). Al-Fadl b. Shadhan is said to have seen a copy of Ubayy’s 116 suras (rather than the 114 of Uthman’s) in a village near Basra in the middle of the 3rd century A.H. (10th century C.E.).

The order of suras in Ubayy’s codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman’s.

G6: Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

These variations in the codices show that the original text of the Qur’an cannot have been perfect. The fact that a little known secretary (Zaid ibn Thabit) was chosen as the final arbiter of the Qur’anic text points to possible political interference. The admission by this secretary that the task of collating the verses was unduly daunting and his consequent pronouncement that one verse was initially missing from his finished text (sura 33:23) while another verse, according to authoritative sources, is still missing (the stoning verse) puts even more suspicion on its authenticity.

On top of that, the many variations which exist between Zaid’s text and those of supposedly more authoritative collators (Mas’ud and Ka’b) can only add to the perception of many today that the Uthmanic Qur’an which we supposedly have today leaves us with more doubt than assurance for its authority as the perfect word of God.

Yet that is not all. We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur’an had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph’s standard for a single approved text even after Uthman’s death. This was carried out by al-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, which were later reduced to seven readings.

If the other codices were in existence today, one could compare the one with the other to ascertain which could claim to be closest to the original. Even Hafsah’s copy, the original from which the final text was taken, was later destroyed by Mirwan, the governor of Medina. But for what reason???

Does this act not intimate that there were problems between the other copies, possibly glaring contradictions, which needed to be thrown out? Can we really believe that the rest were destroyed simply because Uthman wished to have only one manuscript which conformed to the Quraishi dialect (if indeed such a dialect existed)? Why then burn the other codices? If, as some contend today, the other codices were only personal reminisces of the writers, then why did the prophet give those codices so much authority during his lifetime? Furthermore, how could Uthman claim to judge one from the other now that Muhammad was no longer around?

There are certain scholars today who believe that Zaid ibn Thabit and his co-workers could have reworked the Arabic, so as to make the text literately sophisticated and thus seemingly superior to other Arabic works of its time; and thus create the claim that this was indeed the illiterate Muhammad’s one miracle.

There are others, such as John Wansbrough from SOAS, who go even further, contending that all of the accounts about companion codices and individual variants were fabricated by later Muslim jurists and philologers. He asserts that the collection stories and the accounts of the companion codices arose in order to give an ancient authority to a text that was not even compiled until the 9th century or later.

He feels that the text of the Qur’an was so fluid that the multiple accounts (i.e. of the punishment stories) represent “variant traditions” of different metropolitan centres (such as Kufa, Basra, Medina etc.), and that as late as the 9th century a consonantal textus receptus ne varietur still had not been achieved. Today, his work is taking on greater authority within scholarly circles.

Unfortunately we will never know the real story, because the originals (if indeed they ever existed) which could have told us so much were destroyed. All we have are the copies written years after the originals by those who were then ordered to destroy their originals. There are, therefore, no manuscripts to compare with to give the current Qur’an authenticity, as we have with the Bible.

For those who may wonder why this is so important, let me provide an example: If after I had read this paper out-loud, everyone was to then write down all I had said from memory when they returned home, there would certainly be a number of variations. But we could find out these variations by putting them all together and comparing the many copies one against the other, as the same errors would not be written at the same place by everyone. The final result would be a rendering which is pretty close to what I had said originally. But if we destroyed all of the copies except one, there would be no means of comparing, and all precision would be lost. Our only hope would be that the one which remained was as close to what I had said as possible. Yet we would have no other rendering or example to really know for sure.

Consequently, the greater number of copies preserved, the more certitude we would have of the original text. The Qur’an has only one doctored manuscript to go on, while the New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts in existence, from a variety of backgrounds, from which to compare!!! Can you see the difference?!

It is therefore quite clear that that which is known as the Textus Receptus of the Qur’an (the text considered authoritative in the Muslim world today) cannot lay claim to be the Textus Originalis (the genuine original text).

The current Qur’anic text which is read throughout the Muslim world is merely Zaid’s version, duly corrected where necessary, and later amended by al-Hajjaj. Consequently, the ‘official’ text as it currently stands was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardization of a preferred text at the initiative of one caliph, and not by a prophetic direction of divine decree.

In conclusion one can safely say that there is relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. There is, however, no evidence to support the cherished Muslim hypothesis that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, as so many Muslims claim (For further reading see Jam’ al-Qur’an, by Gilchrist).

Yet, even if we were to let the issue rest, concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have now is the same as that which Muhammad related to his followers, we would still need to ask whether its authority might not be impinged upon due to the numerous errors and contradictions which can be found within its pages. It is to that question that we now proceed.

H: The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

The abrogation of Qur’anic verses presents a problem for Muslims today. As we all know, a man can make mistakes and correct them, but this is not the case with God. God has infinite wisdom and cannot contradict himself. Abrogation flies is the face of sura 6:34 (and 10:65) which state:

“…There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.” An even more damaging pronouncement is made in sura 4:82 which reads, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies.”

Muslim authorities try to explain the internal contradictions in the Qur’an by stating that certain passages of the Qur’an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later than themselves. The verses which replace them are referred to as Nasikh. Yet, there is by no means any certainty as to which disagreeing verses are mansukh and which are nasikh, since the order in which the Qur’an was written down was not done chronologically but according to the length of the suras.

From the preceding section we have found that even the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then could we know which were the more authoritative?

The law of abrogation is taught by the Qur’an in sura 2:106,108, stating: “We substitute one revelation for another…” This is echoed in sura 17:86, which reads, “If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration.” In sura 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Jalalu’d-Din estimated the number of abrogations at between 5 to 500. Others say it stands closer to 225. What this shows us is that the science of abrogation is an inexact science indeed, as no-one really knows how many of the verses are to be abrogated. Underlying this claim of abrogation is another concern: How can a divine revelation be improved upon? Would it not have been perfect from the start?

Yusuf Ali in his defense of abrogation claims that there is a need for progressive revelation within scripture, saying: “its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time”. Christians believe in progressive revelation as well, as God reveals and changes His will for a people as they change culturally over a period of generations. The problem with suras 2:106, 17:86 and 16:101 is that they do not refer to revelations given prior to Muhammad, but refer uniquely to the Qur’anic verses themselves. One cannot claim progressive revelation within a space of only 20 years (this was the time in which the Qur’an was written). The period found in the previous scriptures spans 1,500 years! People and cultures change in that amount of time. Thus the revelations would reflect those changes. To demand the same for a revelation of a mere 20 years suggests that God is not all-knowing. The only other option can be that the recorder made corrections, and then came up with a revelation to authenticate those corrections. While you decide, let’s look at some of these abrogations.

Some examples of these abrogations are:

1. In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the Qibla, the direction of prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, and back to Mecca.

2. The inheritance laws in suras 4:7; & 2:180, provides an equal share for women and men, and then is doubled for men in sura 4:11.

3. The change of night prayers from a full night in sura 73:2-4, to a half or less, or whatever was easy to do in sura 73:20.

4. The change of punishment for adulteresses, beginning with life imprisonment, found in sura 4:15, and then changed to 100 strokes by flogging, according to sura 24:2. Remember that these two examples make no mention of the previous ‘missing’ aya which prescribes the stoning for those who commit adultery. It is also interesting to note that Homosexuals were let off if they repented, according to sura 4:16, though this same allowance was not given for heterosexuals.

5. The change of the retaliation laws where retaliation for the crime (murder) was confined to people of equal rank (i.e. slave for slave) in sura 2:178, then it was to be carried out only against the murderer by the heir, sura 17:33 (note: Ali adds Qisas and forgiving to the Arabic).

6. The change of the days of creation from 6 (7:54; 25:59) to 8 (41:9-12).

7. The change of the hierarchy of prophets, where they were initially equal (suras 3:84;2:285;2:136) and then some are elevated above the others, sura 2;253 (see Ali’s note:289).

8. The changes in intercession; at first done by angels and Muhammad (suras 42:5; 24:62), and then were not acceptable to Allah (suras 74:48; 63:5; 34:23).

9. The Sword verses: the Call to “fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them” (sura 9:5); or “strike off their heads in battle” (sura 47:5); or “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (sura 9:29); or “Fight then… until the religion be all of it Allah’s” (sura 8:39); or “a grievous penalty against those who reject faith” (sura 9:3). These all contradict “There is no compulsion in religion” (sura 2:256).

10. Sura 2:184 first allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast by feeding an indigent. The following verse (185) allows no compensation.

11. Widows were to keep themselves apart for 4 months and 10 days after their husband’s death (sura 2:234), which is then changed to one year (2:240).

12. Sura 2:106 contradicts sweeping changes which follow: in the Qibla (vss.115,177,124-151), pilgrimage rites (vs.158), dietary laws (vss.168-174) law of talio (vss.178-179), in bequests (vss.180-182), the fast (vss.182-187), and the pilgrimage again (vss.196-203).

13. Sura 16:101 contradicts changes which follow in dietary laws (vss.114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124).

14. Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him (sura 87:6-7), is then changed to withdrawing that which Allahs wills to withdraw (i.e. revelations) (17:86).

15. Allah commits himself as law to act mercifully, which implies cause and effect (sura 6:12), yet later in the same sura we find that “If Allah willed, he could have brought them all together to the guidance… Whom Allah will he sendeth astray, and whom he will he placeth on a straight path” (vss. 35 & 39).

16. Concerning predestination, in sura 57:22 we find the words, “No evil befalls on the earth, nor on your own souls but it is in a book before We bring into existence.” And in sura 76:29-31 it says, “..whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord, Yet ye will not, unless Allah willeth… He maketh whom He will to enter His mercy…” Both of these contradict sura 42:30, which states, “Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned.”

17. In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

18. Muhammad was the first to bow down to Allah (i.e. the first Muslim) (sura 6:14,164; 39:12). Yet these passages forget that Abraham, his sons and Jacob were former Muslims (sura 2:132) as were all the earlier prophets (sura 28:52-53), and Jesus’ disciples (3:52).

19. Allah curses all liars, yet permits Muhammad to break an oath (sura 66:1-2), and though Allah alone may be worshipped, he demands Satan and the angels to worship Adam, with the result that Satan is eternally punished because he refused to do so (sura 2:32).

20. An abrogation evidenced by Muslims today is the claim that the Bible (which they admit is a revealed book) has been altered and corrupted. Yet sura 10:65 reads, “There is no changing in the Words of Allah,” and sura 6:33,34 reads, “There is none that can alter the decisions (revelations) of Allah.”

21. In sura 17:101 we find 9 plagues (or signs), whereas in sura 7:133 only 5 are listed (note Ali’s footnote no.1091 which adds the rod and leprous hand from verses 107 and 108, as well as the drought and short crops of verse 130 as plagues, to make up the nine).

22. In sura 51:57 we find that Jinn were created to worship Allah, yet in sura 7:176 we find that the Jinn were created for Hell.

23. In sura 17:103 we are told that Pharaoh was drowned with his army, yet in sura 10:90-92, upon admitting to the power of God, he is rescued as a sign to others.

24. Angels are commanded by Allah to bow down to Adam in suras 15:29-30; 20:116, which they do, yet Allah prohibits anyone worshipping any but him (suras 4:116; 18:110).

25. Lust is condemned in sura 79:40-41, yet in sura 4:24-25 Allah permits polygamy, divorce, and the use of female slaves as concubines (one needs to ask why a man needs a concubine if not to satisfy his lust). Furthermore, for those who are faithful lust is the primary, and unlimited reward in heaven (suras 55:46-78; 56:11-39). Surely if lust is wrong on earth and hateful to a Holy God, it cannot be pleasing to him in paradise.

26. On that same note, wine is forbidden while on earth (sura 5:91), yet rivers of wine await the faithful in paradise (suras 47:15; 76:5; 83:25)

27. Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved.

28. In sura 4:157 we read that Jesus did not die, yet in sura 19:33 we read that not only did he die, but he arose again! (note: Yusuf Ali has no rebuttal here, but in his footnote no.2485 refers to sura 19:15, which repeats the same words for Yahya, and then refers the reader to sura 4:157-a vivid example of using a Nasikh verse to abrogate one which is Mansukh in order to get out of a “jam”).

Some of these may not be serious contradictions, were it not for the claim that the Qur’an is “nazil” which means “brought down” from heaven without the touch of human hand. This implies that the original “un-created” preserved tablets in heaven, from which the Qur’an proceeds (sura 85:22), also contains these abrogations. How can they then claim to be Allah’s eternal word?

Equally disturbing is what this implies concerning the character of God. For, if Allah in the Qur’an manifests himself as the arbitrary God who acts as he pleases without any ties even to his own sayings, he adds a thought totally foreign to the former revelation which Muhammad claimed to confirm. Indeed, these abrogations degrade the integrity of the former revelations which were universally applicable to all peoples, for all time. The Qur’anic abrogations on the other hand fit the requirements of one specific man and his friends, for one specific place, and one specific time.

I: Errors Found Within the Qur’an

For centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur’an has been preserved in its original Arabic form since the beginning of time itself, and preserved intact from the period of the “sending down” of the book to Muhammad, right on down till the present. They have been taught that the text which we read now was uniquely inspired, in that there were no intermediary agents who could possibly pollute the integrity of the script.

At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur’an must be the Word of God, as no one but Allah could have created and preserved such a perfected text. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar willing to make any critical analysis of its content or of its structure, as to do so would usually be detrimental to his or her health. However, when an analysis is made by a Western scholar upon the Qur’an, that analysis is roundly castigated as being biased from the outset, and even “satanic,” and therefore, unworthy of a reply.

But that does not stop the analysis from being undertaken, for the Qur’an when held up to scrutiny finds itself lacking in many areas.

As we have already discussed, we find problems with its sources, its collation, its literary makeup, its supposed uniqueness, and problems even with its content. It is not difficult to find numerous contradictions within the Qur’an, a problem which Muslims and the Qur’an has attempted to alleviate by conveniently allowing for the ‘law of abrogation.’ But even more devastating towards the integrity of this supposed perfect ‘divine book,’ are the numerous errors which are found in its pages. It is therefore to those errors which we will now turn in our continuing quest to ascertain whether, indeed, the Qur’an can claim to be the true, and “perfect” Word of God, as Muslims have so often maintained since the very inception of their faith.

I1: Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

Many errors are found in the Qur’an which contradict the Biblical account. In the previous section we discussed a number of these contradictions in some detail, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say, that because the Qur’an followed these scriptures and made the claim to protect them (suras 6:34; 10:65; and sura 4:82) its integrity is put into doubt when it fails to adhere to the content of the very scriptures it claims to protect and confirm. Some contradictions I will mention, however, because they give doubt to the veracity of its content.

I1i: Moses

The first concerns the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s wife (in sura 28:9). This story contradicts the Biblical Exodus 2:10 version, which states that it was Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted Moses. It is important to note here that had Pharaoh’s wife adopted Moses, he would have consequently been adopted by Pharaoh himself, making him heir to the throne. This fact alone makes the subsequent story of Moses’s capture and exile rather incredulous.

I1ii: Yahya

According to the Qur’an, no-one bore the name of Yahya before John the Baptist (sura 19:7). Yet, we find that name mentioned in the Old Testament (2 Kings 25:23) implying that it was a well known name hundreds of years before the writing of the Qur’an.

It is interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his translation of sura 19:7 tries to circumvent this problem by translating this aya as, “on no-one by that name have We conferred distinction before.” Yet, the word ‘distinction’ does not appear in the Arabic at all. Is a translator permitted to change a text like this to correct an error? Obviously not! Ali is playing a dangerous game here. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims refer to all English translations as simply interpretations. In his note (no.2461) Ali attempts to explain the problem by assuming that “Allah had, for the first time, called one of His elect by that name.” It would have been better had he left the text stand as it was written.

I1iii: Trinity

The Qur’an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. The author of sura 5:116 mistakenly thought that Christians worshipped three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). But Christians don’t worship this doctrine of the Trinity at all! There was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Choloridians, who had a concept of the Trinity which included Mary, who would have been in Arabia during the time of Muhammad. They are possibly the source for this obvious error.

Another error is also found in sura 5:73-75, where the Qur’an says, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three…” Obviously the accusation is against Christians, yet Christians do not believe God is one of three! We believe that God is one. Yusuf Ali does a grave injustice in his translation by adding the phrase, “Allah is one of three in a trinity.” The words “in a trinity” do not exist in the Arabic text! Ali puts it into his translation in an attempt to avoid the rather obvious mistake that Christians believe in three gods.

I1iv: Ezra

The Qur’an in sura 5:72 makes the mistake of claiming that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I2: Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors:

Some errors point to internal contradictions within the Qur’an itself. I have dealt with these in another paper as well, and so will only list them here to jog your memory.

I2i: Mary & Imran:

One of the best known errors is that concerning the confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur’an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in suras 19:28; 66:12; 20:25-30), though the two, Mary and Miriam, lived 1,570 years apart.

I2ii: Haman

Another well known passage is that of Haman. In the Qur’an Haman is referred to as a servant of Pharaoh, who built a high tower to ascend up to the God of Moses (sura 28:38; 29:38; 40:25,38). But the Babel tower occurs 750 years earlier (Genesis 11), and the name Haman is correctly found in the story of Esther in Babylon, 1,100 years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali believes that the reference here is simply that of another Haman, yet Haman is not an Egyptian name, but uniquely Babylonian.

I3: Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

There are other stories in the Qur’an which do not stand up to the secular data which is available. These errors are possibly the most damaging for the credibility of the Qur’an as the perfect ‘Word of God’ because their veracity can be measured against the test of observable data, which is by definition neutral and binding.

I3i: Ishmael

The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham’s nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob’s twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham’s third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur’an.

I3ii: Samaritan

The Qur’an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term ‘Samaritan’ was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to “Samiri” and Pickthall to “As Samirii,” Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it “Samaritan.” Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, “bends over backwards” to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean “Shemer,” which denotes a stranger, or “Shomer,” which means a watchman, the equivalent of “Samara” in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of “Periklytos,” or the word “Machmad” which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

I3iii: Sunset

In sura 18:86 it states, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness.” It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring.

I3iv: Issa

The name for Jesus in the Qur’an is given as “Issa.” Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly “all-knowing” Qur’an has no mention of it.

I3v: Mountains

Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For pre-scientific man this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would have seemingly, a stabilizing effect on the earth. Yet we now know this logic to be quite inaccurate. Mountains do not render the earth’s crust stable. In fact, the very existence of mountains is evidence of instability in the earth’s crust, as they are found and pushed up by the colliding of tectonic plates (i.e. the migration of Arabia toward Iran has resulted in the Zagros range, France pushing against Italy produced the Alps, and the Indian plate nudging Tibet has given us the Himalayas).

I3vi: Alexander the Great

In sura 18:83-100 we find the story of Dhu al Qarnayn, who is known as the Greek conqueror, Alexander the Great. According to this sura, his power was given to him by Allah (aya 84), which some Muslims contend is an assertion that he had the same prominence as a prophet. But of even more importance to our discussion is the contention, according to this sura, that he was  credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out (aya 96).

It is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander’s exploits. From their writings we know that Aristotle was his tutor. Yet, these historians equivocally make him out as a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death at the early age of 33. They show that he was an idolater, and actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. How, therefore, could he be considered to have the same prominence as a prophet, or even, as aya 84 clearly asserts, that Allah was the agent for his power?

Yet, what is even more troubling, there is no historical evidence anywhere that he built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which, indeed, would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders or engineers in the history of mankind.

When we find the Qur’an so inaccurate in regard to Alexander, whose history is well known, we hesitate to accept as valuable or even as reliable the statements of the Qur’an about other matters of past history.

I3vii: Creation

Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore, in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles.

I3viii: Pharaoh’s Cross

In sura 7:124 we find Pharaoh admonishing his sorcerers because they believe in the superiority of Moses’s power over theirs. Pharaoh threatens them with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, and then says they will all die on the cross. But their were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practised by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after Pharaoh!

I3ix: Other Scientific problems

1. Sura 16:66 mentions that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. What does this mean?

2. In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?

3. sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?

4. sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).

5. sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the “farthest Mosque” during his journey by night (the Mi’raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir ‘Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad’s death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

I4: Absurdities

There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur’an.

I4i: Man’s Greatness

Sura 4:59 states,”Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.” This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man’s greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God’s image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

I4ii: Seven Earths

Sura 65:12 reads, “It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths.” We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

I4iii: Jinns & Shooting stars:

Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur’an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.

How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non-material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?

I4iv: Solomon’s power over nature:

1. Birds and ants King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah’s army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).Note: According to the historical record, Abrah’s army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).

2. Jinn The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

3. Wind The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month’s journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura 3:11; 21:81).

4. Ants talk The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

I4v: Youth and dog sleep 309 years

Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali’s attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).

The object of this story is to show Allah’s power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.

I4vi: People become apes

In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur’an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled “Planet of the Apes” rather then the other way around.

I4vii: Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

In suras 11:81-83; 15:74 the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down and rained upon with clay-like brimstone, upon whose surface were marked the destiny of the wicked people who lived there.

I4viii: Jacob’s Smell & Sight:

In sura 12:93-96 Joseph sends his coat to his father as proof of his existence. But as the caravan leaves Egypt, Jacob, who is in Canaan smells Joseph, who is hundreds of miles away (aya 94). Then the coat, when it arrives, is placed over the face of his father Jacob and suddenly he receives his sight. Now we know why Andrew Lloyd Weber added the word “amazing” to the title of his musical, “Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

I4ix: Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man:

In sura 16:12-15 the day and night as well as the Sun and Moon are surprisingly all made subject to man. That would imply that we had control over the rotation of our planet, as well as the entire movement of our solar system (Yusuf Ali’s explanation of this odd pronouncement in note no.2031 is rather interesting).

I5: Grammatical Errors

Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is the Word of God, it is without error in all areas. We have already dealt with the questions concerning the style and literary qualities of the Qur’an earlier, and found it to be quite defective in those areas. Yet, even more troubling are the grammatical mistakes which exist within its text. Can we expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow such deficiencies to creep into his supposedly ‘perfect’ and eternal revelation? Consider the following:

1. In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).

2. In sura 7:160, the phrase “We divided them into twelve tribes,” is written in the feminine plural: Uthnati Ashrat Asbaataan. Due to the fact that it refers to a number of people, it should be written in the masculine plural form: Uthaiy Ashara Sibtaan, as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.

3. In sura 4:162, the phrase “And (especially) those who establish regular prayer…” is written as al Muqiyhina al salaat, which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural: al Muqiyhuna al salaat (?). It is important to note that the two following phrases, “(those who) practice regular charity, and (those who) believe in Allah…” are both correctly written in the masculine human plural form.

4. In sura 5:69, the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, should be written al Sabieen.

5. In sura 63:10, the phrase “I shall be” is written akun (which is in the 3rd person?). Yet since this word refers to the future (& is in the 1st person) it should be written akunu.

6. In sura 3:59, the words Kun feekunu should be written, Kun fakaana.

There are other grammatical errors which exist in the Qur’an as well, such as: suras 2:192; 13:28; 20:66 and the duals which replace the plurals in sura 55.

If we are still in doubt as to whether the Qur’an is subject to error, it might be helpful end this section by quoting a Muslim scholar, who, himself, comments on this very problem concerning grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an:

“The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects… To sum up, more than one hundred Qur’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.” (Dashti, 23 Years, pgs.48-50)

J: The Sources of the Qur’an

In the earlier sections of this paper we discussed the problems which we observed concerning the claims which Muslims make towards their Qur’an. We noted the haphazard means by which the Qur’an was collected, and were appalled by the many abrogations and errors which exist in this supposedly “perfect” word of Allah. We came to the conclusion that the book could be nothing more than a man-made piece of literature, which could not stand alongside the great literary compositions that we have in our possession today. Yet, we found it troubling that there were so many inadequacies with this most ‘holy book’ for the Muslims.

As we approached the study on the collation of the Qur’an, we were shocked by the glaring deficiencies which were evidenced in its collection, forcing us to conclude that much of its content must have been added to much later.

If this be so, we are now left with the question as to where the author or authors went for their material? Where were the sources for many of the stories and ideas which we find in the Qur’an?

When we read the Qur’an we are struck by the large number of Biblical stories within its pages. Yet, these stories have little parallel with that which we read in our Bible. The Qur’anic accounts include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to that which we have heard our parents read to us at devotional times. So, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Upon reading and observing these dubious teachings in the Qur’an we are forced to ask whether they contain stories which have parallels in pre-Islamic writings which were of questionable authenticity? If so, then we should be able to find these “apocryphal” accounts and compare them with that which we read in the Qur’an.

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish apocryphal literature (much of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century C.E. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an.

The Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century C.E., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions had been created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Many Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but merely use them as windows with which to understand the times in which they were written.

So how did these non-authoritative Talmudic writings come to be a part of the Qur’an? In the Arabian Peninsula (known as the Hijaz), during the seventh century many Jewish communities could be found. They were part of the diaspora who had fled Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. A large number of these Jews were guided by these Talmudic writings which had been passed down orally from father to son for generations. Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those amongst the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book.

When Muhammad came onto the scene, in the seventh century, some scholars believe he merely added to this body of literature the Qur’an. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by Muhammad, or perhaps later redactors, and incorporated into the religion of Islam.

Those who are critical of these sources, yet who adhere to Muslim Tradition, and consider Muhammad as the ‘originator’of the Qur’an, contend that many of these stories came to Muhammad via the Jewish friends which he had in Medina. We do know from Muslim tradition that Muhammad’s uncle, Waraqa, translated portions of the Gospels into Arabic, and that Buhaira, a Nestorian monk, was his secret teacher (Tisdall, pg.15).

Muslim Tradition also maintains that Muhammad’s seventh wife, Raihana, and his ninth wife, Safiyya, were Jewesses. Furthermore, his first wife, Khadija, had a Christian background. His eighth wife, Maryam, also belonged to a Christian sect. It is likely that these wives shared with him much of their Old and New Testament literature, their dramas, and their prophetic stories.

Whether these wives understood the distinction between authentic Biblical literature and that which was apocryphal is not known. They would not have been literary scholars, but would have simply related the stories they had heard from their local communities, much of which was Talmudic in origin, as we shall soon see.

Another scenario is that many of the corresponding stories which we find in the Qur’an are from a later date (towards the end of the eighth century, or 100-150 years after the death of Muhammad), and have little to do with Muhammad. They were possibly written by later Persian or Syrian redactors, who simply borrowed stories from their own oral traditions (Persian Zoroastrians, or Byzantine Christians) as well as stories from the apocryphal Jewish literature which would have been around at that time. They then simply telescoped back the stories onto the figure of Muhammad in the seventh century. Whatever is the case, the Qur’anic accounts do have interesting parallels with the Jewish apocryphal literature from the second century C.E.

Let’s then look at a few of these accounts, and compare them with the parallels which we find in other co-existing, or pre-dating literature of that period.

J1: Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

J1i: Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

In suras 2:34 and 17:61 we find Satan (Iblis, who could be a fallen angel, or a jinn, according to sura 18:50) refusing to bow down to Adam. This story can be traced back to the second century Talmud.

J1ii: Cain and Abel

A better example is the story of Cain and Abel in sura 5:27-32: The story begins much as it does in our own Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel (though they are not named in the Qur’anic account). Yet in aya 31, after Cain slays Abel, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical account (see sura 5:30-32 written out below, on the left). Where could this Qur’anic account have come from? Is this an historical record which is unknown to the Biblical writers?

Indeed it was, as the source for this account was drafted after the New Testament was written. In fact there are 3 sources from which this account is taken: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and a book called The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All these 3 documents are Jewish writings from the Talmud, which were oral traditions from between 150-200 C.E. These stories comment on the Laws of the Bible, yet are known to contain nothing more than Hebrew myths and fables. As we read this particular story from these 3 sources, we find a striking parallel to the Qur’anic account:

Qur’an- sura 5:31:

“Then Allah sent a raven, who cratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.”

Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah:

“Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, buried it at once.”

Apart from the contrast between who buried who, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later author obtained their story. Thus we find that a Jewish fable, a myth, is repeated as historical fact in the Qur’an.

Yet that is not all, for when we continue in our reading of sura 5, in the following aya 32 , we find a further proof of plagiarism from apocryphal Jewish literature; this time the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

Qur’an- sura 5:32:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land-it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…”

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5:

“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ‘the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out’
[this latter is a quote from the Bible, Genesis 4:10], and he says, ‘it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.’ Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race.”

There is no connection between the previous verse (aya 31) and that which we have just read (sura 5:32 above). What does the death of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people? Nothing. Ironically, this aya 32, in fact, supports the basis of the Old Testament hope for the finished work of Jesus, who was to take away the sins of the world (see John 1:29). Yet, it doesn’t flow from the verse which preceded it. So why is it here?

If we were to turn to the Jewish Talmud again, this time to the Mishnah Sanhendrin, chapter 4, verse 5 (above, on the right), we will find where the author obtained his material, and why he included it here.

In this account we read a Rabbi’s comments, where he interprets the word ‘blood’ to mean, “his own blood and the blood of his seed.” Remember, this is nothing but the comment of a Rabbi. It is his own interpretation, and one which is highly speculative at that.

Therefore, it is rather interesting that he then goes on to comment on the plural word for ‘blood.’ Yet this Rabbi’s comments are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an, in aya 32 of sura 5! How is it that a Rabbi’s comments on the Biblical text, the muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and attributed to God? Did Allah learn something from the Rabbi, or was it Muhammad or a later author who learned this admonition from this Rabbi’s writings?

The only conclusion is that the later is the case, because there is no connection between the narrative concerning the killing of Cain in the Qur’an (aya 31), and the subsequent verse about the whole race (aya 32).

It is only when we read the Mishnah Sanhedrin that we find the connection between these two stories: a Rabbi’s exposition of a biblical verse and a core word. The reason why this connection is lacking in the Qur’an is now quite easy to understand. The author of sura 5 simply did not know the context in which the Rabbi was talking, and therefore was not aware that these were merely comments on the Biblical text and not from the Bible itself. He simply added them to the Qur’an, repeating what he had heard without understanding the implication.

It is rather ironic that in sura 25:4-5 this very charge of haphazard plagiarism is leveled at Muhammad by the unbelievers in Medina:

“But the unbelievers say: ‘Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.’ In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: ‘Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”

This charge rings closer to the truth than many Muslims are willing to admit. It seems that those who did not believe in Muhammad or in the later redactions, recognized the sources for these stories, since they had undoubtably heard the same myths and fables from the Jews who were not only living in that area at that time, but came from the surrounding countries to the fairs at Mecca and other trading towns in the Hijaz.

It seems quite obvious that the Qur’an cannot be accepted as the word of God, if there exists parallels in its narratives which exist from myths and commentaries of other religions, such as we find here.

J1iii: Abraham

In sura 21:51-71, we find the story of Abraham (due to its length, it is not written here- you can read it for yourself). In the Qur’anic account Abraham confronts his people and his father because of the many idols which they worship. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the larger ones intact. When the people see this they call Abraham and ask if he is responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idols which did the destruction. He challenges them to ask the larger idols to find out, to which they reply, “Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!” (aya 65). He gives a taunting retort, and they then throw him into a fire. But in aya 69 Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.

There are no parallels to this story in our Bible. There is a parallel, however, in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In this account Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenged him on this, and with an added bit of humour, which is missing in the Qur’anic account, Abraham responds by saying that he had given the biggest idol an ox for all the idols to eat, but because the smaller idols went ahead and ate, they thus did not show respect. The bigger idol consequently smashed the smaller idols. The enraged father did not believe Abraham’s account, and so took him to a man named Nimrod, who simply threw him into a fire. But God made it cool for him and he walked out unscathed.

The similarity between these two stories is quite unmistakable. A second century Jewish fable, a folklore, and myth is repeated in the “holy Qur’an.” It is quite evident that Muhammad or another author heard this story from the Jews, but because he could not read their books, though he had heard snatches of the Biblical narratives, from visiting Jews, or even his wives, he simply assumed they came from the same source, and unwittingly wrote Jewish folklore into his Qur’an.

Some Muslims claim that this myth, and not the Biblical account, is in reality the true Word of God. They maintain that the Jews simply expunged it so as not to correspond with the later Qur’anic account. Without attempting to explain how the Jews would have known to expunge this very story, since the Qur’an was not to appear until centuries later, we nonetheless must ask where this folklore comes from?

The Bible itself gives us the answer.

In Genesis 15:7, the Lord tells Abraham that it was He who brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ur is a place, also mentioned in Genesis 11:31. We have evidence that a Jewish scribe named Jonathan Ben Uziel mistook the Hebrew word “Ur” for the Hebrew word which means “fire.” Thus in his commentary of this verse he writes, “I am the Lord who brought you out of the fire of the Chaldeans.”

Consequently, because of this misunderstanding, and because of a misreading of the Biblical verse a fable became popular around this era, which stated that God had brought Abraham out of the fire.

With this information in hand, we can, therefore, discern where the Jewish fable originated: from a misunderstanding of one word in a Biblical verse by one errant scribe. Yet, somehow this errant understanding found its way into God’s “holy” word in the Qur’an.

It is obvious from these examples that the author of the Qur’an simply repeated what he had heard, and not being able to distinguish between that which he heard and that which was Biblical truth, he simply compiled them side-by-side in the Qur’an.

J1iv: Mt Sanai

The story found in sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law is not recognizable from the Biblical account. And well it should not be, for it hails from another second century apocryphal Jewish book, The Abodah Sarah.

J1v: Solomon and Sheba

In sura 27:17-44 we read the story of Solomon, the Hoopoo bird and the Queen of Sheba. After reading the Qur’anic account of Solomon in sura 27, it would be helpful to compare it with the account taken from a Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written in the second Century C.E., nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an:

Qur’an- sura 27:17-44:

(aya 17) “And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts-of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks.

(aya 20) “And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?

(aya 21) “I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence).

(aya 22) “But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

(aya 23) “I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne…

(aya 27) “(Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!

(aya 28) “Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return.

(aya 29) “(The queen) said: “Ye chiefs! Here is- delivered to me-a letter worthy of respect.

(aya 30) “It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, most Gracious, Most Merciful: Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).’

(aya 32) “She said: ‘Ye chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’

(aya 33) “They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command.’

(aya 35) “She said…’But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’

(aya 42) “So when she arrived…

(aya 44) “… she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.'”

II Targum of Esther:

“Solomon…gave orders…I will send King and armies against thee…(of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.

Just then the Red-cock (a bird), enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it.

But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom (of Sheba) which is not subject to thee, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’

By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing and away it flew and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing (Sheba) opened it and read it.

‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please thee to come and ask after my welfare, I will set thee high above all. But if it please thee not, I will send kings and armies against thee.’

The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him.

When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger…to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass.

When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…”

It is rather obvious, once you have read the two accounts above, where the author of the story of Solomon and Sheba in the Qur’an obtained his data. The two stories are uncannily similar. The jinns, the birds, and in particular the messenger bird, which he couldn’t at first find, and then used as a liaison between himself and the Queen of Sheba, along with the letter and the glass floor, are unique to these two accounts. One will not find these parallels in the Biblical passages at all.

J1vi: Mary, Imran and Zachariah

In sura 3:35-37 we find the story of Mary, her father Imran, and the priest Zachariah.

Qur’an- sura 3:35-37:

(aya 35) “Behold! a woman of Imran said: ‘O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: so accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.’

(aya 36) “When she was delivered, she said: “O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!” And Allah knew best what she brought forth- “And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.”

(aya 37) “Right graciously did her Lord accept her; He made her grow in purity and beauty: to the care of Zakariya was she assigned.”

The Proto-Evangelion’s James the Lesser:

“And Anna (wife of Joachim) answered, ‘As the Lord my God liveth, whatever I bring forth, whether it be male or female, I will devote it to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in holy things, during its whole life’…and called her name Mary…And the high-priest received her; and blessed her, and said, ‘Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations, and to the very end of time by thee will the Lord shew his redemption to the children of Israel.”

After reading the passage from the Qur’an (on the left), notice the similarities between the Qur’anic story and that found in a spurious gospel account from The Proto-evangelion’s James the Lesser, which is a second century C.E. apocryphal Christian fable (on the right).

Both accounts speak of the child being either male or female. They also mention that the child is Mary, and that she is protected by either a high- priest, or Zachariah, who is inferred as the keeper of the sanctuary, where Mary is kept (though the Lukan account speaks of him as the father of John the Baptist).

J1vii: Jesus’ Birth

There are a number of accounts in the Qur’an which speak of the early childhood of Jesus. These accounts do not correspond at all with the Biblical story. But they do have parallels with other apocryphal Jewish documents:

1. The Palm Tree In sura 19:22-26 we read the story of Mary, the baby Jesus, the Palm Tree, and the rivulet which flows below it. This story is not found in the Biblical account, but first appeared in an apocryphal fable of the second century C.E. (see lower passage; from The Lost Books of the Bible, New York, Bell Publishing Co., 1979, pg.38). Notice the similarities between the two accounts.Qur’an- sura 19:22-26:
   

   “So she conceived him [Jesus], and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: She cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight’! But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm tree): ‘Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee: And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm tree; it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye.

   The Lost Books of the Bible:

   Now on the third day after Mary was wearied in the desert by the heat, she asked Joseph to rest for a little under the shade of a Palm Tree. Then Mary looking up and seeing its branches laden with fruit (dates) said, ‘I desire if it were possible to have some fruit.’ Just then the child Jesus looked up (from below) with a cheerful smile, and said to the Palm Tree, ‘Send down some fruit.’ Immediately the tree bent itself (toward her) and so they ate. Then Jesus said, ‘O Palm Tree, arise; be one of my Father’s trees in Paradise, but with thy roots open the fountain (rivulet) beneath thee and bring water flowing from that fount.’

2. The Baby Jesus Talking Later on in the same sura (19) in verses 29-33 we find that the baby Jesus can talk. Nowhere in any of the gospels do we find the baby Jesus talking. There is the account of Jesus disputing with the elders in the temple, but this story comes later, when Jesus has grown into a young boy. So where did this story come from? Once again, we need only turn to apocryphal writings from the 2nd century; this time to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt, named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ to find the same story:Qur’an- sura 19:29-33:
   

   “But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’

   “He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

   “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live;

   “He hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

   “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

   The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “… Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: ‘Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel…’

3. Creating birds from clay Jesus, according to sura 3:49 breathed life into birds of clay. The source for this Qur’anic fiction is found in the earlier Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, another apocryphal fable from the 2nd century:Qur’an- sura 3:49:

   “And (appoint him [Jesus]) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave…”

   Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “Then he took from the bank of the stream some soft clay, and formed out of it twelve sparrows…Then Jesus clapping together the palms of his hands called to the sparrows, and said to them: ‘Go, fly away.'”

J1viii: Heaven and Hell

There are Qur’anic accounts which deal with heaven and hell, which have no parallels with our Biblical accounts. It is not difficult, however, to find out where these stories originated. Take for instance the following:

1. Seven Heavens and Seven Hells In suras 15:43-44 and 17:44 we find reference to the seven hells and the seven heavens. Without asking where these seven heavens and hells are located, it will be helpful to note that the same number of hells and heavens can be found in the tradition called Jagigah and Zuhal.

2. Mi’raj In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the Sacred mosque to the farthest mosque. From later traditions we know this aya is referring to Muhammad ascending up to the 7th Heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “horse” called Buraq.More detail is furnished us in the Jewish Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic.Another account is that of The Secrets of Enoch, which predates Muhammad by four centuries. In chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1 we read:
   

   “On the first day of the month I was in my house and was resting on my couch and slept and when I was asleep great distress came up into my heart and there appeared two men. They were standing at my couch and called me by name and I arose from my sleep. Have courage, Enoch, do not fear; The Eternal God sent us to thee. Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven. The angels took him on their wings and bore him up to the first heaven.”

3. Hell The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century (Glubb, pg.36)

4. Balance The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9, utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

5. Paradise The description of Paradise in suras 55:56-58 and 56:22-24,35-37, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris who have eyes like pearls, has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia, where the name for the maidens is not houris, but Paaris.

J2: Stories Which do not Correspond With the Biblical Account

There are other stories which do not necessarily follow any Biblical accounts, but which have astonishing similarities with further apocryphal Jewish literature from the second century.

J2i: Harut and Marut

In sura 2:102 the two angels Harut and Marut are mentioned. Who exactly are these two characters? While Yusuf Ali believes these were angels who lived in Babylon, historical records show us that they were idols which were worshipped in Armenia. Their existence was inspired by Marut, the Hindu god of the wind. We find this story related in the Talmud (Midrash Yalzut, chapter 44).

J2ii: The Cave of the Seven Sleepers

The story which was mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, concerning the seven sleepers and a dog who slept for 309 years in a cave, is found in sura 18:9-25. It has a striking resemblance to a book called The Story of Martyrs, by Gregory of Tours. In this account it is a legendary tale of Christians who were under persecution, and who fell asleep in a cave for 200 years.

J2iii: The Sirat

Though not mentioned in the Qur’an by name, the bridge over which all must pass to their final destiny is referred to in sura 19:71. As in the case of the Mi’raj, we must go to the Hadiths to find out what the Sirat really is. And when we do, we wonder from whence such an idea originated. We don’t need to look far, for a similar bridge leading over the deep gulf of hell to Paradise is called Chinavad (the connecting link) in the Zoroastrian book Dinkart.

It is important to remember that none of the above extra-Biblical quotations are recognized by Biblical scholars, historians, or theologians as authentic events in the life of Christ, or in the scope of the Jewish faith. Consequently they are not included in the Bible. In fact their late dates (most are from the second century C.E., or A.D.) should make it obvious to any casual observer that they have little authenticity whatsoever.

K: Conclusion

We have now come to the end of our discussion on the authority of the Qur’an. We began our study by noting that a possible reason for so much misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians could be the way we viewed our respective scriptures; and the real differences which exist concerning our views on revelation and inspiration. It seems obvious to me that until we understand these differences in perception we will be condemned to continue talking at and past each other, without any hope of coming together in true dialogue.

We noted in our study the tendency by Muslims to elevate their Qur’an to a higher degree then what we do with our own Bible. Examples of this elevation can be found in their demand that no-one write in its margins, or let it touch the floor. By doing so they could almost be blamed for deifying it, a practice which sparks of idolatry, the very sin (Shirk) which the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to do (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

From there we dealt with the claim by Muslims that Qur’anic authority is found in the miracle of its composition; that it has superior and unique literary qualities which exceed any known written work. It seems to be the consensus of a number of scholars, however, that with no logical connection from one sura to the next, the Qur’an not only is difficult to read, its content is so confusing that it takes an enormous amount of patience to understand it. With criticisms like these it is difficult to understand why Muslims continue to elevate its supposed literary qualities.

We noted that Muslims claim authority for the Qur’an as a universal document. Yet, we found the Qur’an to be a uniquely 7th-9th century Arab piece of literature, which simply reflected the mentality and culture of that time. This was made clear with two examples: the case for the inferiority of women and the profoundly violent nature of the Qur’an and its prophet, Muhammad. From there we continued on to the collection of the original documents, and asked the question of whether any document which comes from the hands of God could be tampered with as we have witnessed here in these examples. The incredible respect and awe which is evidenced by Muslims today for their Qur’an belies the seemingly cavalier attitude of the earlier Caliphs towards the original codices, evidenced by their burning of all extent manuscripts, even those which Muhammad himself had deemed to be authoritative.

We were astonished at how an “eternal divine document of God” could contain within its text not only abrogations of itself, but errors which give doubt to its entire veracity. If God’s word is to retain its integrity, it must remain above suspicion. Even the Qur’an demands such a standard. In sura 4:82 we read, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies” (sura 4:82). The testimony of the material we have covered here convicts the Qur’an of failing in the very claims it purports to uphold, and sustain. This bodes ill for its claim to inspiration, while negating any hope of any recognized authority.

In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur’an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur’an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur’an’s authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur’an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a “holy book” which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur’an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur’an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur’an could hope to be the true Word of God.

The same test of verification is required of the Qur’an as that of all scriptures, including those which have preceded it (the Old and New Testament). For decades now scholars have attempted to find fault with our scriptures, applying to them the same critical investigation we have applied here and more, and for the most part we have welcomed it. Yet, through all the critical and sometimes polemical analysis which has been fomented against our scriptures, they have resolutely stood the test. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bible continues to be the number one best-seller in the history of literature. Though we do not accord our scriptures the same sense of elevated worship which the Muslims demon- strate for their Qur’an, we do stand behind the veracity of our scriptures claim to divine inspiration. We do so because it has proven time and again to remain consistent to the claims it makes of itself and of all true revelations which come from the divine hand of God.

L: References Cited

Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, The Holy Qur’an (Revised Edition), Brentwood, Amana Corporation, 1989

Campbell, Dr. William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, Middle East Resources

Copleston, F.S, Christ or Mohammed? The Bible or the Koran?, Harpenden, Nuprint, 1989

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, The Codification of the Qur’an Text, South Africa, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Hoodbhoy, Pervez, Islam and Science, London, Zed Books ltd., 1989

Morey Robert, Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1992

Nehls, Gerhard, Christians Ask Muslims, Bellville, SIM International Life Challenge, 1987

Pfander, C. G., The Mizanu’l Haqq, (Balance of Truth), London, The Religious Tract Soc., 1910

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

Qur’anic Interpretation

Jay Smith – January 1996

Qur’anic interpretation, or exegesis, known as Tafsir in Arabic, is the exercise by which writers and theologians explained the text of the Qur’an. Their aim was to explore its ramification as much as possible, as well as to make the text understandable to the populace 1. It is not a new practice in the Muslim world. According to Muslim tradition, the first “professional” exegete was the prophet Muhammad’s nephew Ibn ‘Abbas, who was fifty years younger than Muhammad, and lived between 619-670 A.D. 2.

From that time a long tradition of Qur’anic interpretation followed. Many of the scholars are now household names, such as,al-Tabari (d.923), Az-Zamakhshari (d.1144), Ibn al-Kathir (d.1373), and Muhammad Abduh (d.1905). Islamic Dictionaries were also compiled, the most noteworthy by: Al-Gawhari (d.1002), Ibn Manzur (d.1311), and Al-Firuzabadi (d.1414). Also popular were two other books dealing with the Qur’an: Al-Waqidi’s compilation of “sent down” verses, and As-Suyuti’s introduction to the Qur’an 3.

Yet until the time of Muhammad Abduh, a scholar who lived at end of the 19th century, the art of deciphering Qur’anic interpretation was mainly an academic affair. To understand a commentary required detailed knowledge of the technicalities and terminology of Arabic grammar, Muslim law and dogmatics (Shar’ia), as well as the Traditions of the Prophet and his contemporaries (Hadith), and the Prophet’s biography (or Sira).

As a result Qur’anic exegesis became an exercise for the elite, a practice reserved for a small coterie of academics, and divorced from the workaday life of the populace at large. Consequently interpretation became solidified and almost canonized, known as Taqlid (or past interpretation, the old way of doing or thinking).

The older interpreters of the Qur’an had always interested the west, yet, ironically, the same interest was not shared among Muslims. The reason for this was that Muslims usually preferred the Qur’an to be calligraphed, chanted or recited, and not interpreted 4.

In fact, it is only now, in the latter half of the 20th century, that Muslim scholars are finally publishing books about earlier Qur’anic exegesis. At present about a dozen important 20th century musalsal commentaries exist, including works by: ‘Abd al-Galil ‘Isa’s Al-Mushaf al-Muyassar (1961), Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi’s Tafsir al-Maraghi (1945), Muhammad ‘Abd al-Mun’im Khafagi’s Tafsir al-Qur’an (1959), Muhammad Abu Zayd’s Al-Hidaya wa-l-‘Irfan (1930), Muhammad ‘Izza Darwaza’s At-Tafsir al-Hadith (1960), Muhammad Mahmud’s Higazi’s At-Tafsir al-Wadih (1952), and Sayyid Qutb’s Fi Zilal al-Qur’an(1950-1960?) 5. Some of the newer commentaries are controversial, such as those by Muhammad Abu Zayd (1930), Ahmad Khalafallah (1947), and Mustafa Mahmud (1970).

So why this sudden interest in Qur’anic interpretation? What has brought about the shift in thinking towards areas of life and practice which have remained codified for centuries?

Today as Muslims are coming into greater contact with foreign civilizations, there has been a pronounced need to re-interpret the Qur’an for the new age. A crisis has descended upon Islam by the encounter with the enlightened and more or less secularized Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries. During that period Muslims no longer ruled their lands. Consequently the religion of Islam no longer had the means at its disposal to sway the hearts and minds of the populace like it once had.

In the sphere of social life the unfeasibility of Muslim society’s mediaeval structures contrasted with the active and dynamic way of life of the Westerners. The traditional way of living and thinking, taken from the Qur’an were just not good enough, and the Qur’anic commentators could no long ignore the call of the new times.

A new exegesis of the Qur’an began, not due to language problems, but the inevitable increasing number of situations not dealt with in the sacred writings. This was taken over by theologians, lexicographers, linguists, grammarians and jurists of Islam.

The name which stands out in this group is that of Muhammad ‘Abduh, to whom I will return in fuller detail later. It was his intent to explain the Qur’an in a practical manner to a wide public, wider than the professional Islamic theologians, with the design to show that the Qur’an had solutions for the urgent problems of the day. His concern was,

“To liberate [exegesis] from the shackles of Taqlid

His commentaries became very successful, both amongst those who were progressive as well as the conservatives. With the increasing literate public demanding answers to current problems, problems which the traditional commentaries did not deal with, Abduh’s commentary inevitably became quite popular.

Abduh believed that the Qur’an is a book from which Muslims ought to derive their ideas about this world and the world to come. As a corrective, however, he maintained that one should not explain things that are left unexplained (mubham, closed or locked) by the Qur’an 6.

‘Abduh’s exegesis (and the following commentary by Rida), were determined by “the need of the times.” Thus, for example, the interpretation in ‘Abduh’s reading of Sura 2:27 was to resist western domination, as Egypt was being occupied by the British at that time. 7.

Jansen in his book The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt looks at three areas where modern Qur’anic interpretation has tended to apply itself. These are the areas which he calls “natural history, philology, and practical application.” It is within these three genres of exegesis that I would like to now look, to better understand where current Qur’anic exegesis is going, and what it is saying.

A: Natural History or “Scientific” Interpretation

Natural History is the first area which I would like to deal with. This area is also known as Scientific Exegesis, or that which is known in Arabic as Tafsir ‘ilmi. Scientific exegesis seeks to draw all possible fields of human knowledge into the interpretation of the Qur’an; to find in the Qur’an that which has been discovered by the sciences of the 19th and 20th centuries 8.

Two verses are cited for this practice; Sura 16:91, which states, “We have sent down to thee the Book as an explanation of everything,” and Sura 6:38, where we read, “We have not let slip anything in the Book.” If the Qur’an contains an explanation of everything, then, according to current Islamic scholars, modern science should be included. Thus,they maintain, all sciences, skills and techniques have their roots in the Qur’an 9.

Az-Zamakhshari (d.1144) took this idea one step forward maintaining that in heaven a perfect divine universal record is kept in which nothing is omitted. The Qur’an in its earthly form is merely a reflection of this heavenly “well-preserved tablet” (from Sura 85:22-23) 10.

The traditions also echo this scientific exegesis, where the prophet is supposed to have said, “The Book of God. It contains the tidings on what was in the past. It announces what will be in the future” (Muhammad Husayn Ad-Dhababi, At-tafsir wa-l-Mufassirun, iii,144).

With this view towards science, it came as no surprise that as early as 1257, the scholar Ibn Abi al-Fadl al-Mursi discovered in the Qur’an the arts of astronomy, medicine, weaving, spinning, seafaring and agriculture, as well as pearl-diving (the latter found in combining Sura 38:36, which says, “Every builder and diver” and Sura 16:14 which says, “…brings forth ornaments”) 11.

As more and more Muslim countries were being colonized by the west in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the help of “the superior European technology,” it came as a consolation to many Muslims to read in commentaries on the Qur’an that all those foreign weapons and techniques which enabled Europeans to rule over them were based on principles and sciences mentioned or foretold in the Qur’an. The main scientific exegetes during this troubling period (1881-1920) were: Al-Iskandarani, Ahmad Mukhtar al-Ghazi, Abdallah Fikri Basha, and Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi.

Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi’s Ad-Din fi Nazar al-‘Aql as-Sahih (“religion in the light of pure reason”) was the most popular (1905). It was a polemical work and contained a list of 40 mistakes in the text of the Bible. Sidqi believed that it wasn’t Muhammad but Paul who had epileptic fits, and that the New Testament was corrupted by malicious party quarrels, and therefore was of little value to Muslims.

Tantawi Gawhari (1870-1940) wrote a scientific commentary on the Qur’an which comprised 26 volumes! He believed that in the same way that Muslim jurists built a system of law out of the vague moral exhortations of the Qur’an, the scientific exegetes may deduce the movements of the celestial bodies out of the same Qur’an 12.

For these Muslim exegetes, it was a means to defy imperialism and to take up instruments of civilization, culture and science to enable the Muslims to resist the west with their own scientific weapons.

Farid Wagdi’s commentary on the Qur’an included the use of modern natural history to interpret certain passages, often stating that, “Modern science confirms this literally,” or “in this verse you read an unambiguous prediction of things invented in the 19th and 20th centuries!” 13. Unfortunately he rarely, if ever, stated where his modern science sources were.

It was this failure to corroborate one’s sources which often brought out the critics of the scientific exegetical method.

Another problem with this method was the intellectual weakness employed by many of the exegetes.

Hanafi Ahmad (with a Bsc. from Durham) is a good example of this problem. Using verses in the Qur’an in which the word nagm (star) occurs, he concluded that the Qur’an presupposes knowledge of the difference between the nature of the light of the planets and the light of the stars. The word for planets (kawakib) he believed never occurs with the word ihtida’(guidance), whereas the word stars does, as in Sura 6:97. He concluded therefore that according to the Qur’an, stars and not planets are the original light in the sky, and that the light of the planets is derived from the light of the stars 14.

Another example of his line of thought can be found in Sura 21:33 (which most Muslims even today believe proves the Copernican cosmology, since the Sun and Moon are indeed in orbits). Ahmad takes the word yasbahuna (which is translated as “hastening on,” but should mean “swimming”) and assumes it refers to the earth and stars, which he felt would connect with a modern cosmology 15. Yet, any casual observer will be quick to note that both of these verses contain no information on the movements of celestial bodies that has been hidden from any observant biped.

A further example is that found in Sura 27:88, which states, “…and one sees the mountains, apparently solid, yet passing [away] like clouds…” This verse, Ahmad believed alludes to the revolution of the earth.

There were a number of scientific exegetes like Ahmad who went to great lengths to find all modern scientific achievements within the pages of the Qur’an.

Take for instance Muhammad Hanafi al-Banna who discovered allusions to aeroplanes (Sura 17:1), artificial satellites (Sura 41:53), interplanetary travel (Sura 55:33), and the hydrogen bomb (Sura 74:33-38) 16.

The agenda behind these ‘discoveries’ by the modern scientific exegetes was the fact that if it is interpreted their way, they allude to “scientific” facts that were unknown in the days of Muhammad, yet were being discovered more than a thousand years later, implying divine knowledge which no man could have concocted 17.

Thus, it was not surprising when men like Muhammad Kamil Daww wrote that the miracle of the “scientific” content of the Qur’an was even greater than the miracle of its matchless eloquence. This gave veracity to Muhammad, and hence a correctness to all the statements in the Qur’an.

Today the person best known for popularizing scientific exegesis is the french doctor Maurice Bucaille. In his book, The Bible, The Qur’an and Science, he seeks to expose the unscientific nature of the Bible while simultaneously elevating the status of the Qur’an by using the same criteria.

Not all Muslim scholars, however, are happy with these supposed scientific discoveries within the Qur’an. As-Shatibi, a Qur’anic scholar (d.1333) maintained that “there is nothing in the Koran of the things they [the scientific exegetes] assert, although the Koran contains the sciences of the kind known to the Arabs in the days of the Prophet” (Ad-Dhahabi, iii,154).

Amin al-Khuli echoed this sentiment by writing against scientific exegesis, stipulating that lexicologically, the meanings of the words of the Qur’an do not bear a shift into the field of modern science. Philologically, he stated, the Qur’an addressed the Arab contemporaries of the prophet, and consequently it would not address anything they would not understand. Theologically, the Qur’an preaches the ethics of a religion. It is concerned with man’s view of life, not with his cosmological views. Finally it is illogical to assume a static, unchanging set of texts would contain the ever-changing views of 19th and 20th century scientists 18.

This, then, brings us to our second genre of interpretation, that of philology.

B: Philological Interpretation

Philology is the science of discovering what the word/s meant in the past, and what the author intended it/them to mean. There are many words in the Qur’an which are unclear, words which are no longer used, or whose contexts are uncertain.

In the 1300’s, Ibn Khaldun (d.1382) said that, “the Koran was revealed in the language of the Arabs and according to the styles of their rhetoric; so all of them understood it” (Muqaddima, 438). Yet the interpretation of certain words, phrases and verses of the Qur’an occasioned much difficulty with the contemporaries of the prophet, and later generations; so much so that philological Qur’anic interpretation soon became a necessity.

The best known early philologist is Abu ‘Ubayda (d.825) who wrote the Naqa’id, and another work on pre-Islamic society. His word studies began with explanations of the words Qur’an, Sura and aya, followed by word studies attested by lines from classical Arabic poetry, and an enumeration of the stylistic peculiarities of the Qur’an (ellipsis, prolepsis etc…) 19. It was his contention that the Qur’an employed these devices the same way that pre-Islamic poets employed them.

He gave no isnads for his information, and made no pretense that the information contained in his commentary in any way went back to the prophet or to his companions. These are his own thoughts. It is then remarkable that his explanations are found in Bukhari’s (d.870) chapter on Qur’an commentary (Bab at-Tafsir), and in his canonical collection of traditions (As-Sahih), which is considered to contain only those traditions which are from the prophet and his companions (F. Sezgin, i, 83).

A second great philologist was the Persian Az-Zamakhshari (d.1144). He was a Mutazilite (who believed the Qur’an was created by God, vs. the orthodox belief that it was uncreated, resembling the Christian tenet on the Trinity) 20.

Though he was Persian his commentary was philological and syntactical. For example, he tried to explain the peculiar phrase in Sura 6:2, which states, “And a term is stated in his keeping.” The word order goes against the grammatical rule which states: ‘that in a nominal phrase in which the predicate consists of a preposition and a noun or pronoun, and in which the subject is indefinite, the predicate precedes the subject’ 21. His explanation, however, is not convincing to modern readers. He remained silent on those problems he feels unable to solve. Those who came after did not like this and thus wrote in dozens of adaptions to his commentary 22.

The great exegete, Muhammad ‘Abduh had problems with the grammatical problems within the Qur’an as well, and thus did not embark upon a Qur’anic commentary. His pupil Rashid Rida was not satisfied, however, and so added many grammatical pieces of information regarding the text of the Qur’an in the Manar Koran Commentary.

Amin al-Khuli got around the grammatical problems by maintaining that the Qur’an came to humanity in an Arab garb, and therefore in order to understand it we should know the Arabs of that time as much as possible 23.

He advocated a historical-critical study of the Qur’an; suggesting one should study first the history, society, and language of the people to which it was addressed, and only then interpret the Qur’anic verses in light of these studies. This is reffered to as the e mente auctoris principle, which means to take out of the text only that which was envisaged by the author 24.

Others disagreed, saying Muhammad was not the author, but God; consequently it was written with a universal context, which is just as applicable today.

Khuli demanded three criteria in his philological study of the Qur’an: 1) that any subject must be studied using every passage in the Qur’an which deals with that subject, and not just one instance; 2) that one must study the meaning of every word using parallel instances when it is used; and 3) that one should see how the Qur’an combines these words into sentences and then observe the psychological effect the language has on its hearers 25.

A student of Khuli, Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah, wrote a thesis on stories of the earlier prophets in the Qur’an, maintaining that though they (the stories) were not necessarily historically correct. Their importance, he felt, lay in the religious values (qiyam) they contained 26. For obvious reasons Khalafallah lost his position in the university soon after.

Khuli’s widow, Bint as-Shati’, more prudently printed two commentary volumes in 1962 of seven short Suras by Khuli. All were taken from the Meccan period and did not include any legal material, nor any material from the “Biblical” prophets who preceded Muhammad, nor any history of their times. They were simply religious suras, so as not to attract the attention of “heresy hunters.”

As an example, in her exposition of Sura 93:3 which speaks about the long periods without revelations, she explains that the periods of revelation and silence necessarily alternate like day and night, and that this should be expected. To be fair she also quoted other commentaries on this verse, who explained that these long silences were due to two puppies of Hasan and Husayn, which prevented Gabriel from entering Muhammad’s dwelling 27.

Attempting to ascertain what exactly the original intent of a verse meant was the purpose of philological exegesis. While certain Muslims feel reticent to delve into the intent of a book which they believe has divine origins, few Muslims shy away from taking those same verses and finding current application in the present-day world. (We must ask, however, why this would be useful, and how it would threaten Qur’anic integrity and not so the Bible…?)

This, then, was the purpose of practical interpretation, the third genre of exegesis which we will deal with now.

C: Practical Qur’anic Interpretation

Practical Qur’anic exegesis is the third form of exegesis which deals with seeking to implement the Qur’an in every-day life. In order to do this, however, one must begin with Islamic Law.

The Qur’an mostly deals with family law. Yet modern commentaries rarely talk of the technicalities of these laws. Instead they refer to the textbooks of the four classical schools of Islamic law to explain them. In other words the commentators today are reticent to show how the laws apply.

Yet, these same commentators are quick to extol its virtue stating that, “no man-made law was ever better adapted to human nature than Islamic law, which is valid for all places and all times” 28. The primitive practice of severing the hands of thieves, or the increasingly undesirable practice of polygamy is explained as a step forward compared with the time of barbarism preceding Islam.

In order to adequately understand the intricacies of interpretation, one must begin by asking how current exegesis can or should be carried out. And in order to do that one must begin with the Islamic idea of Ijtihad, or legal interpretation. Is Ijtihad permitted to modern Muslims? Classical Islam says authentic Ijtihad died out in 1,000 A.D. Many Muslims today agree that it is permitted, but by whom, and exactly what it is that can be interpreted, there is still much confusion.

Muhammad ‘Abduh and Rashid Rida believed past Ijtihad, which they call Ra’y, or subjective opinions not based on the Qur’an or Sunna, is not binding on present-day Muslims. Ijtihad, therefore, could be used to adjust the law for today’s changing environment. Consequently, laws which don’t apply today are merely “additions” to the command of God, which past jurists are responsible for (Jansen 1980:87).

Abu Zayd in 1930 tried to use Ijtihad in explaining current riba practices, maintaining that exorbitant interest alone is outlawed 29. The Azhar experts disagreed, however, and felt that Ijtihad should only be used in cases on which no ruling had as yet existed. And so the debate continues.

Perhaps to better understand practical Qur’anic interpretation in the modern era, we should refer to one of the greatest Muslim exegetes, Muhammad ‘Abduh, who best applied this form of Qur’anic interpretation in the setting he found himself; that of 19th century Egypt. Let’s, then, look at what he believed and did.

D: Muhammad ‘Abduh (A Practical Exegete 1849-1905)

Muhammad ‘Abduh was born in 1849, in the Egyptian delta, to an ordinary family. At thirteen he studied at the Ahmadimosque at Tanta, second only in importance to al-Azhar (Hourani 1988:130-131). Initially, he was confused by the rote method of learning commentaries on religious texts, and so ran away. When he returned he stayed on at Azhar between 1869-1877, where he enjoyed logic, philosophy and mystical theology.

He became the most devoted student to Al-Afghani (from Afghanistan), from 1871 on 30. ‘Abduh favoured social and political subjects. He remained at heart a scholar, teacher and an organizer of schools. He taught at Azhar but held informal classes at home. In 1899 he became the Mufti of Egypt.

His most important book was Risalat al-tawhid, a systematic treatise on theology which was based on lectures he did while in Beirut. He wrote a number of commentaries on parts of the Qur’an, and, along with his disciple, Rashid Rida, began a commentary on the whole of the Qur’an, which hadn’t been finished at his death.

He saw the inner decay, and the need for revival, which he felt was peculiar to Islam. He wondered how one could bridge the gap between what Islamic society should be, and what it actually was? He saw the advance of western society and realised that the world was being pulled into either one of two spheres: the diminishing sphere made up of the laws and moral principles of Islam, and the growing principles derived by human reason which he blamed on the secularization of society.

‘Abduh felt that in order for society to be moral, it had to conform to some law, otherwise it would self-destruct. He admired the advances in Europe, but did not think that transferring its laws and institutions would work in Egypt, and, in fact, could make it worse.

He saw two sets of schools in Egypt: the religious schools, best represented by al-Azhar, and the modern schools, based on European models, and usually founded by foreign missionaries, or the government. The mission schools taught Christianity (which was close to Islam, but some of the students were converting), while the government schools taught no religion, and therefore no social or political morality. The mission and government schools, however, allowed the students to change, while the religious schools did just the opposite.

‘Abduh wanted to continue the process of change espoused by Muhammad ‘Ali. This could only be done, he felt, by linking that change to the principles of Islam; by showing that these changes were not only permitted by Islam, but that they were necessary, and that Islam could be the tool for change while controlling that change simultaneously. He directed this challenge to the non-Muslims, maintaining that it was Islam which was the only valid vehicle for modern changes.

Using Compte’s philosophy on the French revolution, he sought to find a system of ideas universally acceptable, and embody them in religious symbols and ritual. The ideas, he felt must be guarded by a small coterie of bright minds which would have been disciplined and instructed so that they could investigate complex ideas. These would be the “elite”, a type of ‘ulama‘ who should guard, articulate and teach the real Islam, and so provide the basis for a stable and progressive society.

‘Abduh believed that Islam contained in itself the potentialities of rational religion and a basis for modern life. Two things, however, were required:

1. a restatement of what Islam really was.

2. a consideration of its implications for modern society 31. Thus he wanted to liberate Islam from the shackles of Taqlid (past interpretation, or those interpretations which had become codified in law), and reintroduce Ijatihad 32.

Note:Ijtihad = new interpretation

Taqlid= past interpretation (the old way of doing or thinking, canonized, rigid)

He chose Islamic ideas which best served to preserve the unity and social peace of the umma, which led him to blur intellectual distinctions and refuse to reopen old controversies. He sought to reply to certain questions posed by the European religious debates of his time (especially on science and religion).

To get around his critics ‘Abduh borrowed Renan and Spencer’s views on Christianity, that its doctrines could not stand up to the discoveries of modern science (laws on nature and evolution). These fitted well with the Islamic beliefs that Jesus was merely a human prophet whose teaching and nature had been distorted by his followers. Yet, though he borrowed these criticisms of Christianity, he could not go along with their rejection of theism and their support for materialism. Islam, he felt, was a good middle ground between the human intellect, modern scientific discoveries, and the divine transcendence, which was the one valid object of human worship and a stable basis for human morality. Since Islam was the only religion of human nature, with all the answers for the modern world, Europeans would, he felt, eventually get tired of the corruptions of their own faith and accept it.

There was a danger, however. Once the traditional interpretation of Islam was abandoned (by reinterpreting traditional concepts of Islamic thought with the dominant ideas of modern Europe, so that maslaha becomes utility, shura becomes parliamentary democracy, and ijma’ becomes public opinion), opening the way for private judgment, it became almost impossible to ascertain what was in accordance with Islam or not. ‘Abduh, inadvertently opened the door to the flooding of Islamic doctrine and law by all the innovations of the modern world.

The key was the question as to what was essential and could not be changed, and what was inessential and could change (i.e. what were the absolutes)?

In order to know these beliefs and embody them in our lives, he felt we must start with:

1. Reason – It teaches us that God exists, and some of His attributes, though we cannot know anything about the divine essence, for our minds and language are not adequate to grasp the essence of such things. (similar to what Christian theologians term general revelation)

2. Prophets – Men need help to define the principles of conduct, and a right belief. But this help must be another man so that they can be communicated properly. Thus a prophet is needed to transmit to others a message concerning God. (what theologians term special revelation)Reason, ‘Abduh contends, tells us who these prophets are, and specifically that Muhammad is the greatest. He gave three proofs for the genuineness of a prophet’s mission:

   1. his conviction and claims.

   2. the continuity and acceptance in him by others.

   3. the miracles which he performs 33.

      These standards, according to ‘Abduh, proved that Muhammad was a prophet. For, as he noted, “Unless God was working in him, how do we explain his acts and influence in history. The miracle of the Qur’an, for the splendour of its language and the depth of its thought could not have sprung from a human mind?” 34.

      The line of prophets had to end somewhere, for all that mankind needed to know would have come about at some time. “This happened,” ‘Abduh believed, “with the Islamic revelation. Muhammad was sent once mankind was fully grown and capable of understanding all that was necessary. The message he transmitted can be shown to satisfy every need of human nature, and through him it was transmitted to all mankind” 35. So, this is a rational proof of Muhammad’s claim to be the last of the prophets (and the Qur’an the final revelation).

      Consequently, he went on, “Having proved that the Qur’an embodies a divine message, one must accept everything that is in it without hesitation. Once one acknowledges that Muhammad was a prophet, one must accept the entire content of his prophetic message (the Qur’an and the “authentic” hadith)” 36. The problem, of course, arises in interpreting that content today.

      What, for instance do we do with those areas which the Qur’an and hadith do not speak? ‘Abduh’s answer was simply; Ijtihad.

3. Ijtihad takes us back to reason once again, which is used as an interpreter. This is both permitted and essential for Islam. Only those, however, who possess the necessary knowledge and intellectual power must exercise ijtihad. The rest should follow them. (a new Interpretation)A sort of ijma’ (consensus of the community) will grow up over time, he believed, but it must never close the door on, but be secondary to ijtihad. And how do we maintain that which Ijtihadstipulates? The answer, for ‘Abduh was Islamic law, or Shari’a.

4. Shari’a would provide society with a system of rights and duties to hold it to a moral solidarity. These rights and duties are embodied in a law given by revelation (the process of solidification) 37.

For ‘Abduh, the ideal Muslim society is that which not only uses law, but reason as well. He believed that, contrary to what outsiders say, “Islam has never taught that human reason should be checked, for it is the friend of all rational inquiry and all science” 38.

Since Islam was rational, it could adopt the sciences of the modern world without accepting it’s material premise. Since the commands of God are also the principles of human society, the ideal society is that which submits and obeys God’s commandments. For, as he says, “The behaviour which the Qur’an teaches to be pleasing to God is also that which modern social thought teaches to be the key to stability and progress. Islam is the true sociology…So when Islamic law is fully understood and obeyed society flourishes; when it is misunderstood or rejected society decays” 39. (examples today are hard to find, if at all).

‘Abduh believed this ideal society once existed, in the “golden age” of Islam, where one could find a “political success and an intellectual development almost without parallel in the speed and manner of its flowering” 40.

The early umma, the salaf (community of elders, or the first generation of the prophet’s friends and disciples, though ‘Abduh extends this to include the first few centuries), finally decayed for two reasons: a) alien elements which crept in (Shi’i philosophies, and some mystical beliefs), b) adherence to the outwardness and blind imitation of the law (Taqlid), which encouraged a slavish acceptance of authority, and discouraged the freedom to reason. Knowledge, he felt, became their enemy, causing a stagnation of belief, which was replaced by political autocracy 41.

While Islamic nations were weakening, European nations were strengthening because of their active virtues of reason. Muslims needed to acquire science from Europe, which could be done without abandoning Islam, as Islam taught the acceptance of all products of reason.

‘Abduh wanted to borrow these modern ideas and compare them with the four schools of law, as well as the doctrines of independent jurists, with a view to producing a ‘synthesis.’

For example, on answering an Indian as to whether Muslims could participate in non-Muslim charitable ventures, he sought the opinion of all four schools at al-Azhar, then gave his opinion, after having gone to the Qur’an, the hadith of the prophet, and the practice of the first age. This gave him the creation of a unified and modern system of Islamic law.

Other areas for law included: whether Muslims should wear European hats, whether they should eat meat slaughtered by Christians or Jews, whether the painting of the human form was permitted by law, and whether polygamy was morally good or bad 42.

Since 1920 a succession of official laws and decrees on marriage, divorce and testaments has defined and modified the Islamic law by this means. Yet, there are still secular courts administering civil and criminal codes using European models and enacted by the authority of the state, scoffing at the inadequacy of these governments to impose Shari’a law.

‘Abduh also wanted to assimilate that which was good in European morality, such as the abolition of slavery, and the equality of Christians living in Muslim countries. But authority was not there to change it, so that it could become legal. For this to happen he felt one needed a true Caliphate, with a spiritual function who claimed spiritual authority alone. The caliph was to be, what Rashid Rida later called the chief mujtahid (practitioner of ijtihad) who would have the respect of the umma, but not rule it. Non-Muslims should belong to the nation just as did the Muslims, and a Muslim should accept help from a non-Muslim in matters of general welfare, but no more. (Here we have ideas leading to the khilafa: or theocratic state)

‘Abduh’s idea of an ideal government was that of, “a just ruler, ruling in accordance with a law and in consultation with the leader of the people…, a limited, constitutional monarchy” 43. He was ready to support violent measures to attain such a government.

‘Abduh felt that autocratic rule could be tolerated as long as it helped run the country well. Even despots could be tolerated, as long as he was, “a just despot, who could do for us in fifteen years what we could not do for ourselves in fifteen centuries.” Thus, though the British rulers were foreigners and not Muslims, he was prepared to co-operate with then as long as they helped in the work of national education, and provided their term of stay was temporary. ‘Abduh never maintained that the modern world and Islam had unconditional harmony. He believed that when the two were in conflict, the latter took precedence. For, “Islam could never be just a rubber-stamp authorizing whatever the world did, it must always be in some measure a controlling and limiting factor” 44. He, unlike most Muslims, believed that the community had a right to depose its ruler if he were not just.

‘Abduh’s influence, though the most important during his time, was never universal. His methods were picked up by polemical thinkers more interested in defending the reputation of Islam than to discover and expound its truth. Islam, they claimed, could be everything the modern world approved, and possessed hidden in it all the modern world thought it had discovered. (a present-day example? = Hizb ul-Tahrir?)

Certain Muslim writers took ‘Abduh’s thinking further than he had intended. An example of this thinking was Farid Wajdi in his book; al-Madaniyya wa’l-Islam (“Islam and Civilization”). In it he pointed out (using and stretching ‘Abduh’s reasoning) that when there was a conflict between the laws of modern civilization, and those of Islam, the true Islam is in conformity with civilization. Thus the discoveries in Europe of social progress and happiness are really laws which already exist in Islam. He lists examples of these Islamic laws now practised in the west, such as: “the freedom from the tyranny of priests, human equality, the consultative principle in government, the rights of the intellect and science, the existence of unchanging natural laws of human life, intellectual curiosity about the order of nature, freedom of discussion and opinion, the practical unity of mankind on a basis of mutual toleration, the rights of man’s disposition and feelings, the acknowledgement of human welfare and interest as the final purpose of religion, and the principle of progress” 45. In other words Islam, seemingly ‘dissolved’ into modern thought.

It was inevitable that some of his disciples took what he said and applied it to one particular aspect or another, thereby creating excesses of emphasis which overturned the balance he had created. Thus, one group of his followers, after his death, “carried his insistence on the unchanging nature and absolute claims of the essential Islam in the direction of a Hanbali fundamentalism; while others developed his emphasis on the legitimacy of social change into a de facto division between the two realms, that of religion and that of society, each with its own norms” 46.

One of his Egyptian disciples, Qasim Amin (1865-1908) published a small book on the emancipation of women, where he blamed the decay of Islamic society on the disappearance of the social strength found within the family. The basis of society was found in the relationship between man and woman, mother and child, and that these virtues which exist in the family will also exist in the nation. Only when women were equal, as was stipulated in the original Shari’a law would there be normality in society. This, he felt, can only be redressed through education. The veil, he thought, should be restricted since, rather than preserving their virtue, it only produced sexual desire in men, and was only stipulated for Muhammad’s wives. He believed women should have political rights, but that “the Egyptian woman needs a long period of intellectual training before she will be able to take part in public life” 47.

Like ‘Abduh, Amin appealed to those who were already within Islam, at every point taking his stand on the Qur’an and the Shari’a, interpreted, he feels, in the correct way. Thus where the text is clear, it should be followed, but where it is not so clear, then one must choose among alternatives, “in the light of social welfare.”

After 1900 Amin diverged somewhat in his views and came out with a more radical slant, stating that the new standard by which we were to measure ourselves were the great concepts of the nineteenth century (embodied in freedom, progress, and civilization).

His attack was not simply on the abuses of a decaying Islam, but on the notion that Islam is a universal model for all of humanity. He maintained that, “Perfect civilization is based on science, and since Islamic civilization reached its full development before the true sciences were established, it cannot be taken as the model. Like all civilizations of the past it had its defects. It lacked moral originality, and there is no sign that Muslims of the great age were either better or worse than other men” 48. Perfection he felt, “was not to be found in the past, even the Islamic past; it could only be found, if at all, in the distant future.”

What Amin was saying was that religion does not by itself create a state, a society, or a civilization. The growth of civilization can be explained by many factors, of which religion is only one. Thus in order for it to progress, it must have laws which take all equally into account. Consequently, while Islam is a true religion, that does not necessarily mean that Islamic civilization is the highest civilization.

Another of ‘Abduh’s disciples, Lutfi al-Sayyid from Egypt echoed this feeling when he stated that, “a religious society is morally superior to a non-religious one (at least at a certain stages of development). Yet, he does not assert, as his teacher would have done, that an Islamic society is superior to a non-Islamic society” 49.

It was common in ‘Abduh’s school that the only effective means to maturity and independence was education. QuotingE.Demolin’s book, A quoi tient la superiorite des Anglo-Saxons?, he explained that the reason the Ango-Saxons were conquering the world and becoming the strongest and most prosperous was due to two factors: 1) the object of their education was to train men to live in the modern world, and 2) Anglo-Saxon nationalism was ‘personal’, based on individual freedom and aiming at individual welfare 50.

al-Sayyid, like Amin, contended that the real problem of society lay in the family. As he states, “Even more important than the education given in the schools was that given in the family. ‘The welfare of the family is the welfare of the nation,’ and the problem of the Egyptian family was at the heart of the problem of Egypt” 51.

Conclusion

So what have we learned about Qur’anic exegesis, especially as it was applied in the Egyptian context? We found that for much of the classical period, Qur’anic exegesis was relegated to learned men, who had little concern for finding real-life applications to their interpretations. Because of this practice, and due to the influence of western technology and culture, 19th and 20th century Egyptian exegetes were forced to focus on three aspects of interpretation: 1) natural history (or scientific exegesis tafsir ‘ilmi), 2) philological exegesis (or the literal meaning of the text), and 3) practical exegesis (the day-to-day affairs one met in life). Whereas in Christianity, the exegetes utilized the scriptures to find out historical truths (known as historical exegesis), Qur’anic exegetes have not. In contrast they looked for scientific evidence within the Qur’an, and sought to find parallels within western science today.

In the philological genre, the e mente auctoris principle (that which the author intended) was only used by Muslims when trying to derive what those in Mecca and Medina understood, for fear of denying the divine authorship of the Qur’an itself.

The practical exegesis became an exercise in delineating to what degree one should tolerate western influence on secular and religious life. Muhammad ‘Abduh was a good example of how one could apply a practical interpretation of the Qur’an in the world of his day. He believed that Islam not only had all the answers for humanity, but could adopt as well, through reason and Ijtihad, those discoveries which were being evidenced within European and western culture, providing a proper set of laws were enforced by a just Islamic power.

There will always be a need to interpret the Qur’an for today, to delineate how and where we can takes its precepts and apply them to our lives. Otherwise the Qur’an will remain lost in history, a relic of the past, to be studied and perhaps admired for what it provided for the inhabitants of the seventh-ninth centuries, and no more. Men like Muhammad ‘Abduh set his life to adapting the Qur’an for his day. Other exegetes will continue in his steps with perhaps not the same zeal but certainly the same intent. It remains to be seen whether the Muslim community will follow suit. For in interpreting the Qur’an for each age and each culture there is always the danger that God’s universal laws simply begin to reflect the ethos of that age and culture, rather than speak into and affect the parameters by which each age and culture will act. To make the Qur’an living and practical for the adherents of Islam, so that they can better apply its truth to their lives, is indeed an important task. The trick for ‘Abduh was to not let those aspirations dictate the truth which he believed were inherent in the Qur’an. Is not that the problem of any scriptural exegete?

References

Hourani, Alber, Arabic thought in the Liberal Age (1798-1939), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988

Jansen, J.J.G., The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden, E.J.Brill, 1980

Rippin, Andrew, “Trends in Interpretation”, Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Vol. 2, London, Routledge, 1990

1. Rippin 1990:85[]

2. Jansen 1980:4[]

3. Jansen 1980:6-7[]

4. Jansen 1980:18[]

5. Jansen 1980:13[]

6. Jansen 1980:25[]

7. Jansen 1980:30[]

8. Jansen 1980:35[]

9. As-Suyuti Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, ii, 125[]

10. Jansen 1980:35[]

11. Jansen 1980:37[]

12. Jansen 1980:45[]

13. Jansen 1980:46[]

14. Jansen 1980:48[]

15. Jansen 1980:49[]

16. Jansen 1980:48[]

17. Jansen 1980:52[]

18. Jansen 1980:53[]

19. Jansen 1980:60[]

20. Jansen 1980:62[]

21. Jansen 1980:63[]

22. see W.Ahlwardt,1-25[]

23. Jansen 1980:66[]

24. Jansen 1980:66[]

25. Jansen 1980:67[]

26. Jansen 1980:68[]

27. Jansen 1980:69[]

28. Jansen 1980:86[]

29. Jansen 1980:89[]

30. Hourani 1988:132[]

31. Hourani 1988:140[]

32. Hourani 1988:141[]

33. Hourani 1988:145[]

34. Hourani 1988:145[]

35. Hourani 1988:146[]

36. Hourani 1988:146[]

37. Hourani 1988:147[]

38. Hourani 1988:147[]

39. Hourani 1988:149[]

40. Hourani 1988:149[]

41. Hourani 1988:149-150[]

42. Hourani 1988:152[]

43. Hourani 1988:157[]

44. Hourani 1988:161[]

45. Hourani 1988:163[]

46. Hourani 1988:163[]

47. Hourani 1988:164[]

48. Hourani 1988:167-168[]

49. Hourani 1988:172[]

50. Hourani 1988:181[]

51. Hourani 1988:182[]