Sharing the Quran (and Jesus) with Muslims

I’m sure at one point or another, Christians are going to hear that accusation that the Bible has not been accurately translated, or it has been changed or corrupted, or because we don’t have the originals, we’ll never know what it really said. This can be dealt swiftly and effectively. However, this challenged was posed to me by a Muslim man, and I think in this particular case, you can take a slightly different, and more impacting, route.
 The Quran says many surprising (surprising to me anyways) things about Christians and about the Bible. About Christians, it makes a clear distinction about the faithful and unfaithful, or hypocritical, “people of the Book.”

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah (3:78 AYA).

And remember Allah took a Covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made! (3:187 AYA)

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right (3:113-115 AYA)

Nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: Because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant (5:85 AYA/82 MP)

What is important to note here is not the reverence that some Christians received, but the legitimacy of their revelation by God. The Quran does seem to tip its hat towards the Bible. More explicitly:

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone far, far astray (4:136 AYA).

We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them (3:84 AYA)
(7:157 MP).

I presented this to the Muslim man I was talking to. I asked him if the Quran says that the Bible is revelation from God. He said yes, but added the objection that it has been corrupted. This is an important tactic. I believe once you get them to admit that the Bible is from God, then you’ve found an important common ground. Now, you don’t have to push your Bible onto them, you can push the Quran on them. I asked him if the Quran says that the Bible has been corrupted. It doesn’t. But instead of answering the question, he asked me if we had the original copies Of course, I had to say no. When I did, he just said, “Well there you go.”

Now, this is where it’s easier to do Biblical criticism with Muslims than your average skeptic. According to the Quran, we don’t need the originals, even though we can reconstruct it to a 99.5% purity. The Quran does affirm that the faithful word of God as revealed to the Jews and Christians was still around at the time the Quran was written. So instead of going back to the originals, with a Muslim, it is not necessary to go any further than AD 632, which is when the Quran was completed. So if the Quran says somewhere between 610-632 that there were legitimate copies of God’s revelation, the originals aren’t needed. Anything prior to that will probably be an accurate revelation.

At this point, I allowed the Muslim man to insist that the Bible was corrupted. I asked him, for the sake of the Quran which he so dearly loves, to sit down with me and see how much of the Bible, God’s word, we can reconstruct. Not because the Bible is demanding respect, but because the Quran is giving it respect. And that is a powerful foot in the door for sharing with Muslims.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more