It is astonishing to us that many Muslims use liberal arguments to propagate the thesis of the falsification of the Gospel, while they refuse to apply a much needed text critique to their own scriptures. They completely ignore the fact that although the Qurfan is of a considerably younger date, it has similar, if not more complex problems. I am aware of the explosiveness of this statement, but it cannot be more offensive to you than many Islamic statements concerning the Bible are to us. In short, I suggest we will have to play by the same rules. Muslim doctors who propagate that the Bible was corrupted also overlook that most eminent Muslim theologians like at-Tabari (died AD 855), al-Bukhari (died AD 870), as well as al-Ghazzali (died AD 1111) believed in the authenticity of the (Greek) Gospel text. And that is the very message the Qurfan promotes:
"Say ye: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, 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." (Surah al-Baqara 2:136)
"It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light ... If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers. ... 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 ... a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. Judge what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires." (Surah Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52)
"Say: we believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you." (Surah al-Ankabut 29:46)
It is quite clear that at the time the Qurfan was written, there was no hint given anywhere about a possible corruption or unreliability of the Bible. Anyone contradicting it now will not only go against the Qurfan, but will also have to provide an answer to questions like: WHO changed or corrupted the Bible? WHEN was the Bible corrupted? WHERE is the original, or evidence that shows there was such an original? So far I have not heard an answer to these.
If the Bible was corrupted before or at the time of Muhammad, the Qurfan would hardly have spoken of the Bible in such a positive manner. Had the Bible been changed or corrupted thereafter, the many existing old manuscripts that predate Muhammad by hundreds of years, would have given proof of that fact. Besides, we have just read from the Qurfan that the Bible is Godfs Word. We should add, also from the Qurfan, that "no man can change the words of God" (Surah 6:34 and 10:64). So, what are Muslim critics of the Bible trying to do?
Some Muslims reason that the Qurfan does state that the Bible was distorted. They quote:
"Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, while ye have knowledge?" (Surah Al-Imran 3:71)
"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is part of the Book, but it is not part of the Book." (Surah Al-Imran 3:78)
These passages say nothing more than that the Bible, rendered by the Jews in public, as the context suggests, was distorted with their tongues, not with their pens. Else the Qurfan would not suggest that Muslims should ask the People of the Book about the content of the Bible:
"...Ask of those who possess the Message" (Surah al-Anbiyaa, 21:7)
We may well ask, why so many Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted, when history, archaeology and the Qurfan deny this? The answer seems to be rather intriguing.
Ibn Khazem (died AD 1064) ruled the South of Spain for some time as the vizier of the caliph. When reading the Qurfan he came across a verse that referred to Jesus speaking of Good News of an Apostle who was to come after him and whose name should be Ahmad (Surah 61:6). The meaning of this Arabic word is similar to the meaning of the name eMuhammadf. He also must have read about gthe unlettered prophet (i.e. Muhammad) whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the law and the Gospelh (Surah 7:157). So he began to search the Bible for these clues about Muhammad. Probably to his surprise he did not find them. What he did find, however, were a number of contradiction between the two Books, which were assumed to have come from the same divine source. We can see the problem ibn Khazem was facing. Both, the Bible and the Qurfan, are stated to be Word of God\and they contradict each other.
Ibn Khazem made the decision not to question the integrity of the Qurfan. He rather assumed that since the Gospel should agree with the Qurfan, and because Muhammad had spoken so highly of it, the existing Gospel text must have been falsified by the Jews and Christians. This assumption may display his zeal for the Qurfan, but it is not based on historical facts.
Since that time Muslims have questioned the integrity of the Bible. Their argument is not only contradicted by the Qurfan, but also by the ever-increasing strong archaeological and historical arguments, which support the genuineness of the Bible. Besides, why should anyone, for any reason, attempt to change the Word of God?
Perhaps this letter has helped you to take a glimpse at what most Muslims seem not to know. Practicing Christians have a very special place for the Bible in their hearts and lives. It is Godfs love letter to them.
Because it may hurt your feelings it is a rather painful effort for me to write a letter, which questions the source of your deepest convictions. But I am sure that our concern for the foundation of our faith in God will enable us to overcome some sentimental hitches.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Nehls/Abdallah/abdal2.htm