by Amy Orr-Ewing
Both Christians and Muslims
believe that their scriptures are
the Word of God. Three
questions will help in our
consideration of this subject.
IS THE QUR'AN ACCURATE IN ITS
RECORDING OF HISTORY?
The Qur'an refers to a number of
Bible stories but with altered
details. For instance, in the
Qur'an, Ishmael is Abraham’s
child of promise rather than
Isaac, and Moses’ sister Miriam is
also confused with Mary, the
mother of Jesus. In contrast, the
Biblical texts, written at the time
and passed down carefully by
scribes, seem to be more reliable.
Muslims insist the Bible is
corrupted because it undermines
the Qur'anic grasp of history,
however this is arguing
backwards from the assumption
that the Qur'an is true.
A further issue for Muslims is that
the Qur'an declares the Gospels
(Injil) and Torah to be true in
Sura 5.68. Muslims respond by
alleging that the Gospels and
Torah that Muhammed mentions
are the original ones, and that
our Bible has been changed.
Manuscript evidence suggests
otherwise. The Pentateuch and
four Gospels, as we have them
today, were in existence during
Muhammed’s time, and nowhere
in the Qur'an is it stated that
Christians, known as "People of
the Book", did not possess
authentic scriptures nor that
theInjilhad been corrupted.
IS THE QUR'AN A MIRACLE IN AND
OF ITSELF?
Muslims believe that, although
there are no miracles related to
Muhammad's life, the self-
authenticating miracle in Islam is
the Qur'an, which we are told is
unique and miraculous, its
beauty and elegance remarkable.
The book itself is considered
perfect, dictated by God and the
ultimate expression of truth.
Iranian Islamic scholar Sayyid
Hossein Nasr comments, “Many
people, especially non-Muslims,
who read the Qur'an for the first
time, are struck by what appears
to be a kind of incoherence.... It is
neither like a high mystical text
nor a manual of Aristotelian logic,
though it contains both
mysticism and logic.”
He goes on to say, “The Qur'an
contains a quality which is
difficult to express in modern
language. One might call it divine
magic.”
If the beauty and miraculous
nature of the Qur'an are not in
fact self-evident, on what basis
should one accept the book as
true revelation? This argument
requires a priori belief – a
commitment based not on
evidence but nonetheless
insisted upon. Using a rigorously
technical approach, the Iranian
author Ali Dashti commented in
his book, Twenty-Three Years:
The Life of the Prophet
Mohammed, that the errors in
the Qur'an were so many that
grammatical rules had to be
altered to fit the claim that the
book was perfect.
Muslims also claim that the
Qur'an is a miracle on the basis
of Mohammed's illiteracy.
However, all scholars agree that
Mohammed had scribes and
therefore could very possibly
have composed the Qur'an
without a miracle. We know that
Homer was blind and probably
illiterate, yet he authored The
Iliad and The Odyssey, the two
greatest epics of the ancient
world.
IS THE TEXT OF THE QUR'AN
RELIABLE?
Muslims claim that the Qu'ran has
not been altered since it was
recorded in Muhammed's day.
However, Islamic history in the
form of the Hadith tells us that
the third Caliph Uthman was
involved in canonising the
Qur'an.
Arthur Jeffrey, a noted European
archaeologist, discovered
Qur'anic texts that were written
prior to their canonisation by
Uthman, and he notes
differences from what we have
today. In his compilation Uthman
had a number of suras
destroyed, probably due to
contradictions contained within
them.
Jeffrey concludes, “There can be
little doubt that the text
canonised by Uthman was only
one among several types of text
in existence at the time.”
Discovery of some ancient
Qur'anic fragments in Yemen in
1972 has led to research into the
development of the Qur'an.
These fragments reveal
unconventional verse orderings,
textual variations and artistic
embellishment. Among the
manuscripts are versions which
have been written over earlier
and then washed off, which
seems to suggest an evolving
text.
“The impact of the Yemeni
manuscripts is still to be felt,”
wrote Calgary University religious
studies professor Andrew
Rippon in 1999. “These
manuscripts say that the early
history of the Qur'anic text is
much more of an open question
than many have suspected: the
text was less stable, and
therefore had less authority, than
has always been claimed.”
A STARK CONTRAST
On the basis of these three
questions, can the Qur'an be
called the Word of God? In my
opinion, it cannot.
The Bible stands in stark contrast
to the Qur'an in a number of
ways. First, it does not claim to
be dictation from God. The Bible
is unashamedly open about
human participation in its pages,
as it was written by a variety of
authors over 2,000 years. It is a
holy book inspired by God and
involving human collaboration.
The Bible is revelation from God,
which connects with us as
human beings who are capable
of reading, understanding and
appreciating it because it comes
through human messengers.
The Bible contains reliable
accounts of the life, ministry and
death of Jesus. These Gospels are
not written by Jesus himself but
by those who knew Him
intimately and composed them
during their lifetime.
The Encyclopaedia of Islam
(1981) suggests that “the closest
analogue in Christian belief to the
role of the Qur'an in Muslim
belief is not the Bible, but Christ.”
Jesus himself is the eternal Word.
He is superior to any book or
text. He is God incarnate, coming
in human form to live, die and be
resurrected on this earth.
Through self-revelation God
draws us to Himself. He does not
merely send tablets from heaven
– marvellous as that is - but takes
on flesh so that we can have real
relationship with Him. The Bible
is a conduit of that relationship,
with one clear intention: that we
might read it and believe (John
20.31).