Description

The Quran is allegedly the last scripture given by Allah, preceded by the Torah and the Gospel (Quran 3:3). My argument against Islam will have three parts. First, I will demonstrate that the Quran and the Gospel radically oppose each other’s teachings. Second, I will demonstrate that the Quran claims continuity with its contemporary Gospel and that early Islamic scholarship and Sahih Hadith support this interpretation, contrary to the modern Muslim pop apologetic view that the Bible is textually corrupt beyond recognition. Third, I will demonstrate that the lack of this confirmation from the Torah and Gospel leaves the Quran with no meaningful evidence for its own authenticity.

Note: sometimes, the site I use for Quran citations glitches and does not show the cited text. If this happens, please click the site’s “reading” button and then click back to “translation.” It will fix the error.

The Islamic Dilemma

The argument which follows is called the Islamic dilemma, which appeared as early as the 8th century and became popular in the 11th. The basic syllogism is as follows:

(1) The Quran contradicts the Gospel of the seventh century.

(2) The Quran claims the Gospel of the seventh century agrees with it (Quran 3:3).

(C) The Quran is false.

The Contradiction

Proving the first premise is a very simple task. The Quran claims Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but rather that it was an illusion (Quran 4:157). But in the Gospel, Jesus explicitly says ten times that He will be killed or crucified and rise from the dead, even harshly rebuking those who protested this teaching (Mark 8:31-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, Matt. 16:21-28, 17:21-23, 20:17-19, Luke 9:21-22, 18:31-34, John 2:19-22, 10:17-18). Each of the four Gospel accounts present the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as the climax of the story. They are essential to the Gospel’s message. It is absolutely certain that the Gospel of the seventh century is identical to today’s – we have complete Gospel manuscripts from the fourth century, namely the Codices Siniaticus and Vaticanus.

With that settled, we can move on to the next premise: that the Quran claims continuity with this Gospel. The issue here is rather obvious. To escape this argument, modern Muslims often argue that the Quran does not claim continuity with its contemporary Gospel, but a long-lost Gospel, which actually does agree with it. Unfortunately for them, there are dozens of quotes from the Quran which only make sense when interpreted the former way. There are so many verses about this, I’ve organized them into general categories instead of outright quoting most of them. I invite you to read every hyperlink if you want the verbatim:

The Quran

(1) Quran 3:78 is crystal clear that the contemporary Bible was not corrupt. It says: “There are some among [the Jews and Christians] who distort the Book with their tongues to make you think this distortion is from the Book – but it is not what the Book says. They say, ‘It is from Allah’ – but it is not from Allah. And so they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.” This passage explicitly says distortions (corruptions) are not from the contemporary Bible. It says the Jews and Christians lied knowingly, meaning they willfully altered the known Biblical truth. But how could they know the truth if the Bible they had was corrupt beyond recognition? The Quran claims to make all things clear in (Quran 16:89). If you were an Arab hearing this in the seventh century, would you think the Bible was authentic?

(2) In the following six verses, the Quran claims to confirm the Torah and the Gospel: Quran 2:97, 3:3, 4:136, 6:92, 20:133, 35:31. But what sense does this make if the text is corrupt? To validate the Quran using a corrupt Bible, you would first need to extract the authentic Bible… using the Quran. In Quran 2:85, 2:140, 3:69, 5:15, 5:66, and 5:68, Allah disparages the Jews and Christians for only selectively obeying scripture. But if the scripture is corrupt, they should only be obeying it selectively.

(3) These eight verses instruct the Jews and Christians (sometimes called “people of the book”) to verify the Quran using “their” scripture – that is, the scripture they had at the time – or reprimand them for refusing to do so: Quran 2:91 2:101, 2:40-41, 4:47, 5:47, 7:157, 10:94, 21:7. These three verses explicitly instruct the Jews and Christians to verify the Quran using scripture they “already have” or “is in their hands”: Quran 2:89, 3:81, 5:43. But again, this command is incoherent if the Bible was corrupt beyond recognition. There’s no guidance as to which parts validate the Quran, nor even a warning that some would contradict it.

(4) Quran 5:48 says Allah made the Jews, Christians, and Muslims into three different communities with different codes and ways of life for the purpose of “testing [them] with what He has given each of [them]” and commands them to “compete with one another in doing good.” But Allah’s intent and command make no sense if the contemporary Bible was corrupt. If a good-faith reading of the plain words of the Gospel would lead one to conclude Jesus died and rose from the dead, then why does Allah seem to claim responsibility for giving them the Gospel? Why does He sanction each community when the Quran obligates Christians to reject the central belief of their community? If the only way to validate Biblical texts is to use the Quran, wouldn’t this mean Allah failed His goal to establish three distinct, competing communities?

(5)  The Quran does include numerous passages referencing Jews and Christians orally sharing misrepresentations or misunderstandings. But there is only one passage which explicitly mentions textual corruption. Quran 2:75-2:79 speaks of a group who “knowingly corrupt [the word] after understanding it… with their own hands” for “fleeting gain.” Islam’s own great exegetes – Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Al-Wahidi – taught that this passage was about contemporary Jewish scholars who knowingly altered real prophecies describing Mohammad and published the fabrications for money. The use of the word knowingly necessitates the existence of real scripture at the time. Further, the Quran contrasts this group with people of the book who “truly believe… what was revealed to them” and do not alter revelation for fleeting gain (3:199), implying that the conniving Jews as well as many pious Jews and Christians had real revelation in their possession, again contradicting any notion of ubiquitous corruption.

The concept of widespread Biblical corruption does not exist in the Quran. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite: Surahs 6:115, and 18:27 claim the word of Allah is unalterable. 3:78 explicitly says the Bible is not textually corrupt. The verses which do allude to corruption refer to oral misinformation or, at worst, local fabrications. This is not jut my interpretation, but the clear teaching of the Hadith and early Muslim scholarship.

Sahih Hadith

Moving on to the Sahih Hadith, the highest grade Muslim holy texts beside the Quran itself. In Sahih Muslim 8a, Mohammad says that belief in Allah’s books (plural) is an article of faith. In Sunan Ibn Majah 2558 and Sunan Abi Dawud 3626, Mohammad uses the Torah of his time. He then reminds the listeners it came from Allah. In Sunan Abi Dawud 4310, Abd Allah – a Jew who converted to Islam because he found Mohammad prefigured in the Torah – uses his knowledge to corroborate a claim from Mohammad. When a man laughs at the Gospel in Sunan Abi Dawud 4736, Mohammad rebukes him because it is “the word of Allah.” In Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2875 Mohammad states that the Torah, Gospel, and Quran are all parts of one whole. In Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2653, Mohammad bemoans that the Bible is with the Jews and Christians, but they ignore it.

The silence in these verses is deafening. For example, in the first Hadith, Mohammad teaches belief in the divine books alongside belief in Allah Himself, and doesn’t mention anything about corruption. Wouldn’t this caveat have been extremely important? The sole reference to mention textual corruption across Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is Sahih al-Bukhari 7363. However, it uses the same language as Quran 2:75-2:79, describing people who “changed their scripture with their own hands” for “a little gain.” To be consistent with the Quran, the exegetes, and previous examples, we must assume this refers to contemporaries making up new scriptures to sell them, not widespread textual corruption. 

Early Scholarship

Finally, how did early Muslim scholars interpret all this? Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (~650), Mohammad’s cousin, one of his companions, and Islam’s premier commentator wrote: “They corrupt the word‘ means ‘they alter or change its meaning,’ for no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of Allah. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.” Al-Razi (~900), called Imam of Imams wrote, “No change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible, for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds.” Ali Tabari (~900), a preeminent 9th century exegete, acknowledged that the true Gospel was “in the hands” of contemporary Christians.

Dozens of other early Muslim scholars spoke likewise. They regularly used the Bible as an authority. Caliphal epistles addressed to the Byzantine Emperor Leo III and to Constantine VI contain quotations from Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Habakkuk, and Isaiah interpreted as predictions of the Prophet Mohammad. Ibn Qutayba (notably, Signs of Prophecy), Al-Qasim al-Rassi (notably, Refutation of Christians), Al-Yaʿqūbī (notably, Tarikh) and many others likewise cited large tracts of the New Testament, and even drew from multiple popular Biblical translations as authoritative sources for apologetics, history, literature, jurisprudence, and tradition.

This view was the functional consensus until Ibn Hazm wrote Al-Fasl (~1010), which argued for widespread textual corruption. Even after this, many still defended the Bible against the corruption claim, following the opinions of the earlier Imams. Sunni theologian Fakhruddin Razi (~1200) said, for example: “The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Torah and Gospel; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation.” The theory did not gain widespread acceptance until the 13th century, and many Muslim scholars refute it to this day.

Now you may be thinking – to this day? There are Muslim living scholars who see the Gospel clearly contradicts the Quran and believe in it anyway? This is correct. Their position is that the Quran contains the “real meaning” of the Gospel, so the apparent contradiction is not really a contradiction at all. Now, I might bring up the fact that this still renders the Quran’s commands to confirm it against the previous scripture completely nonsensical, certainly contradicting its claim to “make all things clear” (Quran 16:89). But, I’d like to take the argument in a different direction. This rebuttal from the anti-corruption camp puts them in the same position as Muslims who do believe in corruption: without apparent scriptural continuity, they need some other basis by which to validate the Quran. What is it?

Total Lack of Evidence

Modern Muslims apologists argue for Quranic authenticity by claiming it has multiple marks of divine origin. Let’s explore a few of these.

Miraculous Beauty

First, the miraculous beauty of the poetry. First, obviously, this is subjective. One might consider Paradise Lost to be of divine origin by this standard. Second, the Quran itself recounts people constantly receiving it with lukewarmness, calling it “ancient fables,” plagiarism, and “of human origin” (Quran 6:25, 8:31, 9:61, 16:24, 16:103, 17:94, 23:83, 25:4, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13). Again, Paradise Lost seems to have been received more warmly than the Quran. Some will claim that Islam spread because of the beauty of the Quran, but this ignores the previously cited words of the Quran stating that people weren’t all that impressed by it, as well as the “coincidence” that wherever Islam went, it went carrying a sword.

Miraculous Knowledge

Second, the miraculous knowledge of Allah’s transcendent nature, as expressed by the divine names. The Quran lays out 99 unique names For Allah; examples include Ar-Rahman (The Most Compassionate), Ar-Rahim (The Most Merciful), Al-Malik (The King), Al-Quddus (The Pure One), and Al-Khaliq (The Creator). But again, this isn’t proof of anything. The Zoroastrians likewise had a list of 101 names for God, including Khwafar (Compassionate), Avakhshiaea (Merciful Giver), Harvesp-khoda (Lord of all), Tum-afik (The Purest), and Mino-satihgar (The Creator). Does this prove Zoroastrianism is divine? What empirically differentiates this list from the Quran’s?

Third, prophetic miracles. Let’s look at a few examples. “Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing” (41:21). This is allegedly fulfilled by fingerprint technology. “Corruption has spread on land and sea because of what men’s hands have wrought” (30:42). This is allegedly fulfilled by pollution. “And when the wild beasts are gathered together.” (81:6). This is allegedly fulfilled by zoos. These are not strawmen; these are real, commonly-used examples of the Quran’s prophetic miracles. I don’t feel the need to argue these at length. If the Quran were really prophetic, one should be able to use it to identify events before they happen. Ambiguous application to vaguely comparable events after the fact proves nothing.

Fourth, scientific miracles. Let’s look at a few examples. “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them? We made every living thing from water, will they not believe?” (Quran, 21:30). The first sentence is allegedly proven by the Big Bang theory (I guess George Lemaitre, the Catholic priest who discovered it was just reading his Quran a lot), and the second by the fact that organisms are, in fact, largely composed of water. These claims have the same issue as the previous example. If the Quran holds divine scientific knowledge, one should be able to use it to make scientific discoveries or inventions. Every supposed scientific miracle is just an ambiguous verse applied to discoveries made millennia later.

Perfect Rectitude

Fifth, the miracle of no errors and no contradictions. First, there are many examples of Quranic errors – the claim that Jews taught Ezra was the son of God (9:30), the claim that semen comes from the backbone (86:6-7), or mountains as anchors which prevent the earth from shaking (16:15). Further, one might point out the fact that multiple parts of the Quran seem to be plagiarized from Gnostic apocrypha. For example, the claim Jesus was not crucified originated in the Gospel of Judas and Apocalypse of St. Peter. Ironically, the reason they gave for the false crucifixion is that Jesus was fully divine and could not die. The Quran also includes a story of the child Jesus making birds from clay, another Gnostic story. But even if the claim were true, mere lack of contradictions would not prove divine origin anyway.

Sixth, perfect textual preservation. The Quran underwent two rounds of compilation. Under Abu Bakr in 632, the Muslims collected scattered written and oral revelations of the Qur’an into a single manuscript. This manuscript spread in multiple dialects until Uthman decided in 650 to standardize the Quran into Mohammad’s native language and burn all competing versions to ensure uniformity. Today we have the Sanaa Manuscript, one of these pre-Uthman Quranic manuscripts which had its original text scraped off and written over; with the help of modern technology, we can see the original text displays variations like synonyms, omissions, additions, and different word arrangements from the Uthmanic Quran. Sure, the manuscript isn’t meaningfully different from today’s text, but is that all it takes to claim perfect, miraculous preservation? If perfect preservation simply means no meaningful differences, then many scholars would agree that the Gospel meets this criteria.

Perfect Moral Teaching

Seventh, perfect understanding of the harmony of human social and personal needs, and timeless moral teachings. Let’s examine these claims through the teaching and example of Mohammad: Mohammad teaches that Heaven is a place of endless sex with big-eyed virgins (44:51-54, 38:52, 52:17-20, 55:56, 56:22, 56:35, 78:33), permits sex with children so long as they have reached first menstruation (65:4), slaves (33:50, 23:6-7, 70:29-30, 8:69), slaves with living husbands (4:24), and allows polygamy with up to four wives (4:3). Mohammad, who is the supposed exemplar of perfect moral conduct for all times (33:21), marries his adopted son’s wife and justifies it by claiming that Allah told him to (33:37), marries many more than the four-wife limit, and keeps many sex slaves (33:50).

What’s especially funny about this seventh point is that it’s actually another contradiction with the Gospel. Jesus prohibits even looking at a woman with lust (Matt. 5:28); Mohammad teaches that Heaven is an endless lust party. Beyond this, these teachings require Muslims to not only believe there’s nothing objectively wrong with sex slavery, but that it’s actually fitting behavior for humanity’s moral representative. The Muslim defense of the prophet’s behavior is almost always to claim “presentism.” That is, admitting his behavior is not acceptable by today’s standards, but was moral for the time and place. But this qualification contradicts the very claim at hand, that the Quran is miraculously morally timeless!

Summary

The Quran contradicts the Gospel’s central message that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. However, the Quran contains no less than 24 verses claiming continuity with the Gospel. Only one Surah mentions textual distortion, and it speaks of 7th century Jews “knowingly” creating false scripture – so even this exception is a definitive statement that the true scripture existed at the time. At least seven Sahih Hadiths support this idea, and no Sahih Hadiths dissent. Only one makes even an abstract reference to scriptural corruption, and it uses it in the same context as the Quran – contemporary, and limited. The early Islamic scholarly consensus was that the Biblical corruption was interpretive, not textual.

The Quran has absolutely no meaningful evidence of its divinity. Everything used to support it is circular, nonsensical, totally subjective, or some combination thereof. The most profoundly absurd is the claim to moral timelessness. Mohammad is a moral monster who used his power to violently conquer nations, rape wives and children, and encouraged his followers to do the same. And that’s without even getting into his deeds recounted in the Hadith.

The only miraculous thing about the Quran is that anyone believes it.