Mosque Talk or Church Truth?

Over the last number of weeks we've been chatting to lots of young people on the streets around our Church - one of the repeated objections that we have come up against, in discussions with Muslim folk, is that the Scriptures are not inspired, and that the Christians have changed the Tawrat (Torah), the Zabur (Psalms) and Injil (New Testament - chiefly the Gospels).

In a previous post, I wrote that one of the chief Islamic counter-apologetics is denial of the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus - that the Bible has been altered, and its is present form is non-inspired, is the second major sticking-point that Islam raises against the truth. So in this piece, as I learn "on-the-hoof", I want to make a small, initial, attempt to give you a few ground-clearing points to help you reach-out.

Later Objection

While it would n9t be entirely fair or true to call this a recent argument used by Muslims, as they seek to defend and contend for their own faith, particularly in the Post-Christian West, I do want to state that it appears to be true that it was not until the 10th Century A.D., that this became a prominent sticking point raised against the Evangel.

While it does seem to be true that there are some statements in the Quran that suggested Jews had changed the Torah and Christians had changed the Gospel, as some Islamic scholars are keen to point out, the matter is not so clearcut as might seem at first glance. For example in Surah (Chapter) 2: Ayah (Verse) 79 it says:

But the wrongdoers among them substituted words other than those given to them, so we sent down on the wrongdoers a plague from heaven, because of their wicked behavior - 2:59

Again in 2:75-79 it is stated:

75. Do you hope that they will believe in you, when some of them used to hear the Word of God, and then deliberately distort it, even after understanding it? 76. And when they come across those who believe, they say, “We believe,” but when they come together privately, they say, “Will you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might dispute with you concerning it before your Lord?” Do you not understand? 77. Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they reveal? 78. And among them are uneducated who know the Scripture only through hearsay, and they only speculate. 79. So woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, and then say, “This is from God,” that they may exchange it for a little price. Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.

Now, of course, this is an English translation - most Muslims will say you must read the Quran in Arabic to get the real truth: and, for sure, I am no Islamic scholar: therefore, I must be careful not to insist too much on this point. However, as it appears many Muslims recognize themselves, it is not so much that it is asserted that the Jews and Christian changed the Torah and Gospel, or failed to copy them correctly, or transmit them faithfully; rather, it is insisted that they interpreted them wrongly and profited from copies that they made for sale. It seems quite legitimate to suggest, as many have agreed, that the notion that Churches do not have reliable biblical manuscripts was not the key point against which the Quran protests. This becomes more apparent when we consider the Islamic Scholar Ibn Hazm.

His Background

In fact, most trace the fully-developed, erroneously-transmitted, Scripture objection to an Islamic scholar, who lived in Andalucia, called Bin Hazm (his full name was Abu Mohammad Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Said ibn Hazm), also called al-Andalusi al-Zahiri (994-1064). Son of Persian immigrants to Spain, who converted from Christianity to Islam, he was born in Cordoba, into a respected, affluent, academic, family of some import. In those turbulent times, he entered the political fray aged 18. In his 34th year, he set that aside for academic pursuits. In particular, he gave himself to the defence of Islam against the Christianity he encountered.

His Protests

He was quick to accuse Christians, despite their protestations, of what he believed was an illogical, indefensible, inexplicable Trinitarianism, polytheism, and idolatry. As one scholar has written:

Though the Christians believe in the absolute unity of God, at the same time they worship the images portrayed in their church, such as the images of Jesus, the image of Mary, the Cross, the images of Gabriel, the image of Michael and others. To Ibn Hazm it is a form of idolatry prayer (Ibadan al-Authan), but Christians claimed that they are not idol worshippers. At the same time, they even fast (yassumun laha tadayyunan) for the sake of their idols. For him, what they are doing in their prayer is contradicted to the shariah and the teaching of Jesus himself - World Journal of Islamic History & Civilisation 1(4):242-249 (2011)

Just in passing, we might want to note, while lamenting in our hearts, that they idolatry so prevalent in parts of the professing Christian church, in so-called Christian Art, and in the depictions of stained-glass - and even occasionally in the literature of some protestant publications, has given just ground for Islam to complain against these idolatries that have been excused or justified on tenuous grounds. Shame on us! Believe and repent!

His Sources

Equally, it has to be recognized, that a consistently reformed church has repeatedly raised protests against such ecclesiastical excesses and abuses of the truth - we happily profess to be an iconoclastic church: in fact, it is no surprise to discover that the article cited above goes on to note that the religion against which Ibn Hazm sharpened his arguments, was not what we would recognize as authentic Christianity but perversions of it - both ancient and contemporaneous: it included heretical arianism and other sects which have now faded out (and which this author is not familiar with), along with, most likely, medieval Romanism.

His Assumptions

Ibn Hazm did not set out to examine the respective texts of the inspired Holy Scriptures of the Judeo-Christian Canon, and the Quran, from a dispassionate, independent, unbiased approach that modernity might claim. His launching-pad assumption was that the Quran was the infallible, unaltered, Word of God, and that Torah and Gospels should be examined in its light. Since the Gospel writers contradict themselves at many points (or so Ibn Hazm thought), he concluded that the original Scriptures of the Tawrat and the Injl must not only have been badly misinterpreted, but also cunningly mutilated and changed. Or to put it bluntly - because the Quran is True, the Bible must be False.

His Methods

To sum this up, Ibn Hazm scoured the Evangelists for alleged contradictions, and, without placing them in parallel columns, or properly contextualizing each (according to one scholar), went on to show how they were inconsistent with each other: this was proof that these texts were not infallible, and therefore the product of tweaked or erroneous transmission. This was his response that largely rebutted heretics and sects. He proceeded, as I have indicated above, along the lines of logical reason and dogmatic assumption - never for a second did he doubt, if there was a difference between the Quran and the Bible, that it was the latter that was obviously exposed as false.

His Charges

Simply put, he charged the Christian and Jewish Scribes of doctoring the original texts, to such an extent, that we now no longer have access to infallible autographs of the Bible. In other words, the Jews and Christians had altered their Scriptures - the infallible truth, and faithful fulfilment of the Law, Psalms and Gospels, was to be found in Muhammadism, and not, any longer, in Christianity.

His Problems

Novelty

It would seem that one of the major problems with the view of Ibn Hazm is that, with the odd exception, this does not appear to have been the mainstream view of the majority of Islamic commentators prior to himself. Most Muslims seemed to have been fairly oblivious to the allegation that the Torah and Injil had been changed and not transmitted correctly from the originals. Few picked up any such allegation in the Quran itself. There are a number of possible reasons for this: first, they were ignorant of the comments of the Quran itself - but this does not seem to have been the case; second, it was generally held, rather, that quranic references were not to faulty transmission of the Christian Canonical Texts, but rather to twisting the meaning or misinterpretation of their Scriptures, or simply unbelief - this appears to have been the majority if not the nearly unanimous view prior to Ibn Hazm; third, it is quite possible that ignorance of the Old and New Testament library was widespread, such that most muslims simply did not realize that the Quran and the Canon was contradictory and incompatible with each other: they did not yet hold that both could not be the Truth revealed by God - at least in the case of Ibn Hazm, this last incontestable fact does indeed seem to have been to unblushing motive behind his sustained, systematic, determined attack on the inspired writings of the God's Prophets and Apostles.

Archeology

We might fairly ask, if there are no Bible originals that differ from the copies, but yet all of the copies (even the least faithfully transmitted) substantially agree, and those that diverge most do not deviate significantly at any juncture in doctrine or practice from each other, then this was an unproven dogma and unprovable assumption - Ibn Hazm might well be convinced he was correct to conclude as He did, but it was without any proper warrant.

Methodology

The procedure that Ibn Hazm followed, while detailed enough, and quoting from Gospel sources, was not a fair or faithful treatment 0f the biblical accounts. He made no attempt to follow the accounts in order, to deal with each of the Gospel authors in context. He falsely assumed an order of priority and fidelity to the original text - Gospel reliability faded as the reader progressed from Matthew through John. It is said, Ibn Hazm did line up (but not in parallel columns as is common with synoptists) texts to make comparisons and contrasts, but he must have ignored or not had available to himself, the many faithful expositions and commentaries on the Gospels that had circulated in Jewish and Christian circles: had this been the case, and had he included them in his own research, he would have honestly realized there are multiple, convincing and sound solutions to nearly every alleged discrepancy or apparent contradiction in the Biblical Texts. On another point, though somewhat beside it, the fact that he saw no evidence whatsoever pointing towards the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament, suggests that he was naive at best, ignorant in a large part, or blind to the proper reading of the Scriptures.

Theology

Another weakness in the case that Ibn Hazm tried to mount was, as one rather helpful article I came across pointed out, that there are several theological implications of his argumentation which he does not seem to have guarded against:

First, it is clear that the Quran contradicted the Judeo-Christians Scriptures in many places.

Second, it was claimed by the Synagogue, Church and Mosque that each set of writings were originally divinely revealed, inspired and preserved by One God.

Third, if it was suggested that the Tawrat and Injil has not been correctly transmitted, then the logical corollary of that was that the One God who inspired them had not been able to preserve them intact (a charge we absolutely refute).

Fourth, if the One God had inspired but failed or not willed to preserve the Scriptures, then He was neither the God of the Bible or Islam - He was not Omnipotent, Omniscient, or Sovereign over all events that come to pass. To suggest that the Bible was not preserved through the process of transmission was to deny both the deity, potency, and veracity of God.

Fifth, this would imply that the God of Islam was different from the God of Christianity or Judaism - and all the claims to be the inheritors of the truth of the original Torah or Gospels were thus false.

Oddity

Though his objection/view is now considered a standard line of argumentation, and regularly cited against Christian evangelists, at the time Ibn Hazm went out on a limb: both before an after, Islamic teachers tread far more carefully with respect to the biblical texts: even several of those notable who post-date Ibn Hazm wrote that Muslims used the Bible to help understand the Quran, should be encouraged to do so, and made a habit of quoting the verses of the Judeo-Christian Canon verbatim - Quran and Bible were interwoven in their writings. This is not to say they denied that the Quran took precedence (for them it most certainly did): but it would suggest that most were not convinced that collection of scrolls in the library of Covenants Old and New had been significantly altered in transmission of the text. On the contrary, the bulk of the evidence suggests that they held the Bible to be largely, if not entirely, intact. We wholeheartedly concur!

Tardy

Ibn Hazm, for all of his scholarship, "came to the game late." If the dates given for Mohammad, by Islamic scholars, for his birth and death are 570 AD (Mecca) and 632 AD (Mediina), then when Ibn Hazm wrote (between 1022 and 1064), he was writing nearly half a millennium later that the Quran was recorded by dictation from its author. In this intervening period, apart from one or two exceptions, no-one succeeded in seriously questioning the accuracy of fidelity of the copyists of the Jewish and Christian texts.

Other Matters

From an apologetic standpoint, there are many other issues that could be introduced in order to advance a strong case that the claims of Ibn Hazm were sincere but spurious: that would go some way, if accepted, to getting Muslims today to face up the full weight of the Torah, Psalms and New Testament, as impressive evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity, and the sectarian, heretical, errors of the Quran.

A. The prophets and psalms, from start to finish, are replete with predictions of the coming of Messiah, which have been fulfilled in detail by Jesus of Nazareth, as four different evangelists attest: the suffering and glory of Christ, as our Lord pointed out to Cleopas and his companion, are, when properly understood, interpreted and applied, the heartbeat of Moses, Elijah and John: they, and all the other biblical penman, had their heart, mind and will was carried along by the superintending Spirit of God like a ship in full sail.

B. The Old Testament, in shadow, type, apparition, vision, dream and prediction, regularly reveals the Pre-Incarnate Savior before He took our nature to Himself, yet without sin. It is precisely this point that is made in the Prologue in the Gospel of John, that sets the backdrop to all His sermons and signs and sufferings, laid out in human flesh and blood - His claim to be I AM, Heavenly Manna, Resurrection and Life, and so forth, is the very point that we have to receive if we are ever to be saved. There is no room for doubt, as Thomas found out - we must believe Jesus is Lord and God if we are ever to be delivered from the coming wrath. Such necessary faith is the salvific mark of grace. Blessed are those who do not see but yet believe.

C. Miracles in the Gospel are not simply signs that God is at work, but revelations of the divinity of Christ Himself - the fact that He claims to be ISOS (equal) with God, before Abraham, is backed up by the point that He also forgives sin, calms storms, makes loaves, and knows everything. He does not so much ask for miracles to be done, but, by His own authority, and on His own initiative, does them as the Son, in accord with the Father, by the Blessed Spirit. Indeed we might ask with foes or fans: "Who is this?"

D. Further, it has to be said, in addition to the fact that the Bible is the best attested book in ancient antiquity (by some considerable way), if the telephone directory, rather random, incohesive, style of the Quran, even comes close to an "average, literary, work." Muslims may wax lyrical on all the arguments that Jews and Christians have traditionally used to extol the canonical literature - yet, one honestly has to ask, if it was written today, would it ever see that light of the publication press. By contrast, when the Scriptures are read, even by those who do not believe what they teach, it is evident to most that its consistency, cohesiveness, majesty, quality, turn of expression, depth of doctrine, and delight-inspiring quality, which it claims for itself (see for example Psalm 1, 19 and 119), put the teachings of Islam into the shadows (nay, plunge them into the darkness of the age in which they were composed). The Quran is snooze-worthy, but the Scriptures are praiseworthy.

E. One really has to ask, when the meticulous, near-obsessive, practices of the Masoretes are assessed (as Josh McDowell, a Harvard Lawyer, stressed over 50 years ago in "The Evidence Demands A Verdict), if any collection of documents were ever so faithfully and accurately transmitted as these, so as to remove any reasonable room for doubt as to the accuracy of the Text. God's astonishing ability to preserve the Text, throughout all the attempts of the Devil to pervert, attack, undermine or destroy the truth, should be self-evident to any honest heart, when due consideration is given to the evidence of the largest Isaiah Scroll in the Qumran Caves - there is no further requirement to substantiate the standardized, Masoretic Text.

F. Finally, you only have to read into the second chapter of the Quran to see the errors emerging thick and fast. For example, it should be self-evident that its author confused the story of Gideon and the call of Saul to Israel to fight - it is recorded in chapter 2 verse 249 of the Quran:

When Talut (or Saul) 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." But they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We cannot cope with Jalut and his forces." But those who were convinced that they must meet Allah, said: "How oft, by Allah's will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere." - Quran Surah 2, Ayah 249.

I fully agree with one Christian writer on this passage who comments as follows:

In regard to his (first) battle, the Qur'an claims that Saul separated the fighters and picked only a few by the way they drank from the river (2:249). Nothing like this is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11-12, the report on Saul's first battle, or even in the complete account of Saul's reign ranging over chapters 9 - 31. Instead this story is found in Judges 7, where Gideon lead the Israelites into battle. This is again a historical compression where the author of the Qur'an confuses details of separate stories and weaves them into one. In fact, Gideon's first battle against the Midianites where this story of separating the men according to their drinking behavior is taken from, took place about 1160 BC, while Saul's first battle was against the Ammonites, and took place approximately 110 years later! Furthermore, the Qur'an loses the whole point of the testing and separating of men, when Talut supposedly tells his men the terms of the test before they drink. As such it becomes an act of open disobedience instead of means of separating out the soldiers chosen by God according to his secret knowledge as in Judges 4:7-8.

That's as far as I have got in my reading of this text (and I struggle to recognize Arabic cursive consonants) - it didn't take me very long to see that, while some of the language sounds quite biblical, it demonstrates the kind of ignorance of the text for which Mohammad and later Islamic scholars berate nominal, apostate and sectarian Christians and Jews. This should, of course, not surprise us one jot: Satan often masquerades as an angel of light (as a vision of even Jibreel or Gabriel himself), but leads away from the truth of the biblical text, and corrupts the message of Christ with a sugar-coating of Scripture-sounding truth. The tragedy is, whereas the synoptics record these very methods employed in the Temptation of our Savior, that those who claimed to be His successors ignored the warnings that were faithfully given by the Evangelists. Still it is true that "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God". What was true in the Desert, was true from the Garden - cults and sects have impressive, domineering, personalities to raise the question: "Did God really say?"

Conclusion

I have to concede that this is only one Middle Aged example of a Muslim Apologist, which I have unearthed in my research into how to win disciples to The One True Faith in Christ - I hope I have been able to shed a little light on one of the lesser known characters and facts of how it came to be widely accepted among adherents of Islam that the Bible the Christians have in their hands has been changed. If it has aroused your curiosity, or spurred you to think of better ways to contradict this foundational error, then I will be satisfied. If there is anything that I have said that does not compute with the truth of the case, I'd be happy to receive clarification and correction. Blessings to all. In Him who is truly Life, Way and Peace.