"Response to sister Basimah. Contradicting Allah and Muhammad"

Submitted by Lactantius Jr. (United Kingdom), Jan 23, 2007 at 18:27

To Basimah,

Why do you believe the Bible to be corrupted Basimah? As a Muslim you accept the authority of the Qur'an don't you? and whilst you really have no basis to argue for, or to believe in the inspiration of the Quran, the Qur'an says of itself that its source is Allah:- Sura 26:192-195 the Qur'an saying that Allah's word cannot contain error and cannot change. Allah is said to preserve the Qur'an Sura 15:9; 85:21-22 and the words of Allah are said to be unalterable:-

"there is none that can alter the words and decrees of Allah (Sura 6:34)

and:-

"----------none can change his words-----------" Sura 18:27

see also:- 6:115, 10:64 and 50:29

The Qur'an repeatedly says that it confirms the previous Scriptures, for example Sura 3:3 says that Allah:-

"-----------sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospels."

There are many, many Qur'anic references to the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures, and the Qur'an gives them such noble titles as:-

"the book of Allah" " the word of Allah"

"a light and guidance to man" "a decision for all matters"

"a guidance and a mercy" "the lucid book"

"the illumination (al-furqan)"

"the gospel with its guidance and light confirming the preceding law"

"a guidance and warning to those who fear Allah"

Typical of every mention of the Torah and Gospels Basimah, there is no word about textual corruption. Surah's 2:97, 2:285; 3:3,7,23,48,65,84,93,184,199; 4:44,47,51,136,162-164 5:15,46,68-69; 6:91&92,154; 10:37; 11:17; 16:43; 17:2; 20:133; 21:7; 23:49; 26:196; 32:23; 35:31; 41:45; 46:10-12; 54:43; 57:25&27; and 87:18-19 all confirm, rather than repudiate or "complete" the Torah and Gospels, with the texts often being referred to as "inspired."

The Qur'an uses, for example, the following words:-

"musadiqalima mahum" (confirming what is with them)

"musadiqalima baina yadih" (confirming what is between their hands)

"musadiqalima makum" (confirming that which is with them)

Sura's 2:41,89; 3:3; 4:47; 5:48; 35:31 and so on.

All the Qur'anic Surah I have quoted, presuppose the availability in Muhammad's day of the true revelation of the Biblical God, to the people of Muhammad's day,

Surah 3:71,93;10:94;21:71 a true Muslim being obliged to accept and believe in all the revelations of Allah Surah 2:136;4:136;29:46 with the Qur'an making no distinction between Allah's revelations and those of the Biblical God. Surah 2:136

Although the Qur'an claims that no one can change the word of Allah, also erroneously claiming at Surah 29:46 that "our God and your God is one" the Bible and the Qur'an differ profoundly, on such fundamental matters as sin, salvation, the character of the Biblical God and the character of the Qur'anic Allah, heaven and hell, and how to get into the first and stay out of the second, but since the Qur'an is the "new kid on the block," the burden of proof is upon you Basimah, to prove that the Bible is "corrupted and edited" as you outrageously claim, along with describing it being "edited and reworded" to suit King James' lifestyle, referring to a fallacy "most Christians today still follow for some reason knowing full well it was tainted."

So why do you and other Muslims, believe the Bible to be corrupted Basimah? what evidence do you have to support your claim?

Muhammad died in AD 632, but it was not until AD 1064, more than 430 years later, that the first allegation of Bible corruption was made, by Ibn-Khazem. He made this charge to defend Islam against Christianity, because he saw differences and contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an, and believing by faith, the Qur'an to be correct, he therefore concluded that the Bible must be false. He said, "Since the Qur'an must be true, it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad."

Ibn-Khazem's argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts, but only on his personal faith, reasoning and wish, to safeguard the Qur'an, this leading him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed Gospel, except for a few traces which Allah has left intact as argument against them."

BUT many great Muslim teachers did not believe the Bible had been corrupted, and the same Bible is available to us now, as it was to them up to ~1300 years ago, the first-named being:-

Ali al-Tabari who died in AD 855, and who accepted the Gospel texts

Amr al-Ghakiz who died AD 869, and who accepted the Gospel texts

Bukhari (Abu `Abdullah Muhammad ibn Isma'il ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Mughira al-Ja'fai. Famous commentator and collector of hadiths AD 810-870 ?)

Bukhari gathered some of the earliest Islamic traditions, quoting the Qur'an itself, to support his belief in the Bible Surah 3:72,78

Al-Mas'udi AD 956 who accepted the Gospel texts

Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina AD 1037 who accepted the Gospel texts

Al-Ghazzali (Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad at-Tusi al-Ghazali AD 1058-1111) Ghazzali the great Islamic philosopher/theologian, accepted the Gospel texts.

Ibn-Khaldun AD 1406 ~350 years after Ibn-Khazem, and who thus lived well after Ibn Khazem, but did not accept his teachings, rather, believing the earlier Islamic teachers in accepting the Gospel texts.

So Basimah, Why do you make the ugly accusations you have made about a "corrupted" and "edited" Bible? Why do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather than the 7 great Islamic scholars I mention, who all believed the Gospel texts to be truthful, why do you not accept the words of the Qur'an and the words of Muhammad?

If the Bible is good enough for Allah and for Muhammad, why isn't it good enough for you Basimah?

Are you prepared to face Allah, believing as a Muslim, you one day will, with the ugly accusation that he couldn't preserve his word from corruption, contrary to the claims made in the Qur'an?

With kind regards and best wishes

Lactantius Jr.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".