The real reason Islamist terrorists attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo

Following the attacks in Paris against the journal 'Charlie Hebdo' on 7 January 2015 Christian evangelist Jay Smith decided to display and discuss the controversial covers of the journal which provoked the violence.

So on 11 January in the most public of settings, and that bastion of 'Freedom of Speech' - the world famous Speaker's Corner in London - he showed covers which mocked not only Muhammad, but Jesus Christ as well and asked the (many) Muslims in the crowd whether they were offended.

One of these covers mocking Christianity is I think the most blasphemous illustration I have ever seen.

Not surprisingly the Muslims in the crowd were offended, as Jay himself was, but he used the opportunity to make the point that whilst the covers were also grossly offensive to Christians, Christ’s own response to mockery and derision was not violence but rather to pray for his persecutors.

The video is well worth viewing in its entirety – but  I was particularly struck by the section in which Jay explains what he considers to be the real motivation behind the attack.

The real reason, he argues, was not the magazine covers per se, but rather a series of comic books on the life of Muhammad by Stephane Charbonnier, the editor of the Charlie Hebdo journal, who was killed on 7 January. These comics are pictured on the video from 7m 40s and reproduced in the pictures on this blogpost..

Apparently these are no longer available to buy and are likely to become collectors’ items in the future.

As Jay illustrates they are titled 'The Life of Mohammed' and depict episodes from the real life of Muhammad.

What Charbonnier essentially did was to take the most 'juicy' stories from the Islamic traditions. In fact he claimed in January 2013 (see also numbered references below) that his work is 'a properly researched and educational worked prepared by an (unnamed) Franco-Tunisian sociologist'.   

It appears he used a variety of sources and may well have used Zakaria Botros as his inspiration.

Botros is a Coptic priest from Egypt who is best known for his critiques of the Qur'an and other books of Islam. 

According to Wikipedia (see links there) World Magazine gave Father Botros the ‘Daniel of the Year’ award in 2008 and he has been named ‘Islam's public enemy No. 1’ by Arabic newspaper al Insan al Jadeed. Al-Qaeda has apparently put a $60 million bounty on his head.

In an interview with Aljazeera TV, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros's public ministry.

According to Botros, his analysis of Islamic scriptures is designed to give Muslims a ‘short, sharp shock’, intended to make them ask questions and examine their faith.

However, he contends that he is not attacking Islam, but merely searching for the truth; ‘The truth is not restricted to someone, but it belongs to everybody, and it is the right of everybody to search for the truth and to embrace it without fear of authorities or the terrorism of bigots.’

On 16 September 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that Botros was an ideological influence on the film Innocence of Muslims, whose portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad set off protests and attacks on Western embassies across the Middle East. 

But Botros has denied this on his own website.

Regardless, as Jay points out, every story in Charbonnier’s comics is footnoted and sourced to Muslim tradition – that is, every one actually appears in Islam’s own sacred texts. In other words, Charbonnier was simply illustrating what the Hadith already teaches about the prophet. 

But the key point is this – most Muslims do not know their own religious texts well enough to know that. And perhaps if they did they would be asking the same questions as the six million per year allegedly influenced by Botros.

So there it is. Take it or leave it (but if you doubt me look at the references below).

I don’t imagine that many newspapers will be reproducing these comics and I certainly do not own copies myself. 

Other articles on the Charlie Hebdo comic books

1. French paper to publish comic book life of Muhammad 

2. French weekly publishes 'Life of Mohammed' cartoons 

3. Charlie Hebdo publishes 'Halal' Prophet Mohammed comic book biography 

4. French magazine prints comic book life of Prophet Muhammad

5. How Charlie Hebdo became a top terrorist target 

Some matters on which Islam and Christianity are right (and atheism is wrong)

Both Christianity and Islam have been tremendously influential in world history. About one quarter of the world’s population at least nominally, would regard themselves as Christians. One in five would call themselves Muslims.

Yet for most of the last thirteen centuries the two religions have developed in parallel in separate parts of the world. Islam has mainly been centred in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, India and South East Asia (especially Indonesia and Malaysia). By contrast Christianity has been confined largely to Europe, North and South America, Africa and the former Soviet Union. And yet both have been, and still are, growing rapidly.

Now, perhaps for the first time in world history, Christians and Muslims can meet and exchange views in a way that they’ve never been able to before. This is especially possible in schools, university forums and on the internet where Muslim Christian dialogue is taking place on an unprecedented scale.

In many ways Muslims and Christians find themselves as co-belligerents in a common battle against the modern world. The West is now not Christian but rather post-Christian and post-modern. It’s characterised by an obsession with media technology (consumerism and entertainment), a radical relativism which asserts that we can all have our own private truth, an ego-centrism (which looks after number one) and a religious pluralism which asserts all religions are the same. This way of thinking has led to escapism and cynicism in society generally.

By contrast both Christianity and Islam find themselves running against this ideology. They share a concern for community, service and absolute truth: involvement rather than escapism, hope as opposed to cynicism. While postmodern society holds that man is simply a clever monkey, the product of matter, chance and time in a Godless universe, Muslims and Christians are together in asserting that man was made to enjoy a relationship with God.

There are obviously strong differences between the truth claims of Islam and Christianity – especially with regard to the person, words and work of Jesus Christ – but it’s also useful to map out our common ground. Here there are seven common strands clearly evident.

First, Islam and Christianity share a common ethical code, one which underlies respect for marriage, a belief in the sanctity of life, and a respect for property. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament are very similar to Islamic ethics and as Christian doctors we find ourselves agreeing with Muslims on many ethical issues. For example members of the Christian Medical Fellowship work together with members of the Islamic Medical Association within Care Not Killing, which campaigns against the legalisation of euthanasia.

Second, Christianity and Islam share a common geography and history. The two religions date back to the Middle East and in particular come together in the person of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

Third, we share a belief in one God. This may seem a surprise to Muslim readers, but both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible assert God’s oneness. ‘The Lord is one’ says Deuteronomy 6:4. ‘There is One God…’ says 1 Timothy 2:5.

Fourth, we share a belief in prophets – men throughout history chosen as God’s mouthpiece who spoke God’s Word. Many of these prophets are shared in both religious traditions. For example: Moses who brought us the Torah (Taurat), David who brought us the Psalms (Zabur), and of course Jesus who preached the Gospel (Injil). There are several other biblical prophets who are also mentioned in the Qur’an.

Fifth, we share a belief in angels: heavenly beings who are used as God’s messengers throughout history. Gabriel in particular plays a prominent place in both religions. Muslims believe that Muhammad was visited by Gabriel and of course Christians believe that Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus Christ.

Sixth, we share a belief in Scriptural authority. We accept that God’s revelations throughout history have been recorded in books, and while we may disagree about the degree of divine inspiration of the various books in our religious traditions, we nonetheless both share a profound respect of the authority of ‘Scripture’.

Seventh and finally, we share a belief in the day of judgment. Both, Christians and Muslims, hold that on this day God will divide everyone who has lived on our planet into two groups; one group consigned to heaven (paradise) and the other group consigned to hell. While we differ on the criteria by which that judgment will be made, we nevertheless concur on the fact that there are only two possible destinations for human beings after death.

As a basis for dialogue aimed at establishing the truth, it is worthwhile first to acknowledge these convictions that are held in common by Christians and Muslims and are not shared by atheists - matters on which Islam and Christianity are right and atheism is wrong.

Jesus in the Qur'an - What Islam affirms and denies about Christ

The whole of the New Testament, indeed the whole Bible, is about Jesus Christ.

By contrast, the Qur’an, which is about the same length as the New Testament, only mentions Jesus in a few of its 114 chapters. What little there is in the Qur’an both affirms and denies what the Bible teaches.

Jesus' birth

The Qur’an deals with Jesus’ birth in Sura 19:16-23, 29-33 and in Sura 3:42-47, 59. These verses affirm that an angel visits Mary (cf Luke 1:26,27) and indicate that God has chosen her and singled her out (cf Luke 1:28). She is said to be blessed among women (cf Luke 1:31-33) and great things are spoken of the son she will bare (cf Luke 1:31-33). The Qur’an in Sura 3:59 likens Jesus to Adam (as does the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 5:22, 45-49 and Romans 5). Most importantly the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the fact of the virgin birth (Sura 19:20). Interestingly Jesus is the only one of the prophets mentioned in the Qur’an who is said to have had a virgin birth.

Jesus' life

There are also similarities in the Qur’an and the Bible with regard to the life of Christ. Like the New Testament, the Qur’an affirms that Jesus performed miracles: in particular that he restored sight to the blind, healed lepers and raised people from the dead (Sura 3:49, 5:11). The Qur’an also affirms that Jesus brought ‘the message of the gospel’ and that he committed no sin (Sura 3:46).

Jesus' titles

There are also similarities between the titles given to Christ in the Qur’an and those in the Bible. The Qur’an calls Jesus ‘the statement of truth’ (Sura 17:24), a similar claim to Jesus calling himself ‘the Way the Truth and the Life’ in John 14:6. Similarly, the Qur’an calls Jesus the Word (Sura 10:19 cf John 1:1), the Apostle (Sura 19:31 cf Hebrews 3:1) and the servant or slave of God (Sura 4:172 and 19:31 cf Isaiah chapters 42, 49, 50 and 53). 

The servant of God was one of Jesus’ favourite terms for himself and he clearly taught that he was the person talked about in the prophet Isaiah’s ‘Servant Songs’ written many centuries before. Most remarkably, the Qur’an refers eleven times (for example Sura 3:45, 4:71, 5:19, 9:30) to Christ as the Messiah. This is particularly interesting because Messiah (or Christ in Greek) is the title repeatedly applied to Jesus throughout the Bible. In fact, much of the Old Testament is devoted to explaining the characteristics and qualities that the coming Messiah will have.

Strange stories

Other material about Jesus in the Qur’an is not in the Bible at all. For example the Qur’an tells us that a palm tree provided anguish for Mary after Jesus’ birth (Sura 19:22-26) and that the baby Jesus talked from the crib (19:29-33). Furthermore Jesus, as a child, is said to have created pigeons from clay which turned into real birds and flew away when he threw them into the air (Sura 3:49 and 5:11).

These ideas to Christians sound quite bizarre, but now with the benefit of archaeology we have some idea as to what their sources may have been. At the time of Muhammad the New Testament had not yet been translated into Arabic and so he didn’t have access to the New Testament manuscripts when recording the Qur’an. However, we know that he was in contact with a number of groups who, although calling themselves Christian, had quite bizarre beliefs. 

Some people suggest that Muhammad may have been influenced by this and simply incorporated ‘heresy’ into the text of the Qur’an and there is, in fact, very good support for this view. The story of the palm tree is found in an apocryphal document called ‘The Lost Books of the Bible’. Similarly the story of the pigeons comes from ‘Thomas’ Gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ’ and the story of baby Jesus talking is remarkably similar to that found in an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named ‘The First Gospel in the Infancy of Jesus Christ’. All these documents predate the Qur’an by several hundred years.

Plain untruths

The Qur’an also adamantly denies that Jesus is divine (Sura 5:17,75) and says that he is no more than an apostle (4:171; 5:75; 43:59, 63-64). The Qur’an’s claim that Jesus is not the Son of God (9:30) runs starkly in contrast to Jesus’ own claim to divine sonship at his trial (Mk 14:61-64), which led to him being crucified on a blasphemy charge. The Islamic Scriptures also deny that Jesus died on the cross (Sura 4:157) and also, by implication, that he was resurrected.

Perhaps most surprisingly of all we are told that God, Mary and Jesus together constitute the Christian trinity (5:116). This false belief was peddled by a heretical sect called the Collyridians which had been banished to Arabia at the time, and appears to have been unknowingly incorporated into the qur’anic text.

Conclusions

Honest Muslim seekers will want to know more about the life of Christ than the sketchy details recorded in the Qur’an some 600 years after he lived on earth. We need to encourage them to look at the eye-witness accounts of Jesus recorded in the Gospels within a few decades of his death. They can also learn about the historical fact of the crucifixion from late first and early second century documents written by non-Christian Jewish and Roman historians (such as Josephus and Tacitus).

While we can, and should, use what is true about Jesus in the Qur’an to lead Muslims into the fuller truth revealed in the Bible, at some stage we will also have to deal with the differences in the qur’anic and biblical accounts. Why do they believe what the ‘angel’ [claiming to be] Gabriel said above the eye-witness testimony of those who Jesus personally knew, chose and commissioned? ‘Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned’. So said Paul (Gal 1:8,9) In the same way Peter affirmed, ‘we did not follow cleverly invented stories... but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty’ (2 Pet 1:16).

Theresa May needs to look beyond al-Mihajiroun for the real cause of the Woolwich murder

The search for what radicalised Michael Adebolajo (pictured) and Michael Adebowale to kill soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich last week is leading increasingly to the influence of al-Muhajiroun leaders like Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Al-Muhajiroun is an Islamist group fronted by the radical Luton-based cleric Anjem Choudary, which has been rebadged under a multitude of brands since being proscribed by the previous government.

Its founder, Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Lebanon-based preacher, who was banned from Britain and once ran courses in fighting jihad at a disused nunnery in Sussex, claimed last week that he had converted Adebolajo.

If Theresa May is to stop thousands being radicalised in Britain however she needs to look beyond al-Mihajiroun to the text that is radicalising that movement, the Qur’an itself.

As Jay Smith points out in a Pfander Films video published this week, Adebolajo and Adebowale were in fact just taking the Qur’an literally (See also Answering Islam here which makes the same point).

Smith asks why these two men killed this soldier, attempted to decapitate him, pulled him into the street and then, without attacking anyone else, waited around for the police to arrive before running into their guns.

It’s all in the Qur’an, he says.

Sura 5:32, which was ironically quoted this week by Nick Clegg in support of peace, was the very verse that Adebolajo quoted to the cameras to justify his action:

‘whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely’

Rigby was a British soldier in Afghanistan and some British soldiers have killed Muslims. But killing one Muslim is like killing all Muslims. It was British soldiers who killed Muslims so a British soldier and not British civilians had to pay the price.

So what should a Muslim fighting jihad do with such people? The answer in is Sura 47:4:

‘So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them’

And the reward for losing one’s life in carrying out such activity? Well, it’s Paradise, as explained in Sura 47:4, 5 & 6:

‘And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds… He will guide them and amend their condition. And admit them to Paradise, which He has made known to them.’

By shooting them without killing them the police denied these two Muslims their actual aim, promotion to Paradise under the sight of the world’s media cameras.

Theresa May and Nick Clegg cannot of course ban the Qur’an, which is why they must seek instead to reinterpret it to claim that it is not saying what these men believed it was actually saying.

But if we don’t like what happened on the streets of Woolwich, it is perhaps the Qur’an itself, and not just al-Mihajiroun, that we should be calling into question.

Adebolajo justified his actions as ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’.

By contrast Jesus, when one his disciples (Peter) took up the sword urged him to place it back in its sheath:

‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword’ (Matthew 26:52)

And he urged them not to follow the ‘eye for an eye’ directive but rather to ‘turn the other cheek’:

‘You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.’ (Matthew 5:38, 39) 

The history of Islam began with bloody military conquest by Muhammad and his followers.

But Christianity began with the death of Jesus (on our behalf) and of his twelve disciples eleven gave their lives as martyrs in his service because they preached the word of God rather than taking up the sword. It was a peaceful revolution that conquered the Roman Empire through spreading love and the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection.

This is the same love and good news that Christians are called to spread today to all people whatever their age, sex, race, ideology or creed. And it is for this reason that I join many in condemning without reservation not only the Woolwich atrocity itself but also any violent reprisals against Muslims by any British citizens. 

It is true that since the first century others have taken up arms in the name of Christ. But this was never part of Jesus’ teaching. It was however, according to the Qur'an, part of Muhammad’s.

The Qur'an is facing a blistering attack from contemporary scholarship

Muslims are quick to criticise the Bible’s authenticity and authority; and make the most of the writings of liberal Christian scholars in doing so. But what of their own scriptures? The Qur’an has, in the past, been protected by a kind of doctrinal embargo - but now its historicity, claimed inimitability and historical accuracy are facing a blistering attack from contemporary scholarship.

Missing Manuscripts

According to Muslim tradition the Qur’an was received by Muhammad between AD 610 and 632, recorded by his companions, collected by Zaid-Ibn-Thabit, standardised by Uthman the third Caliph, and then distributed to Baghdad, Medina, Basra, Kufa and Damascus in AD 646-650.

Where then are the original manuscripts? The Qur’anic manuscripts Muslims regard as their earliest; the Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul, Turkey, and the Samarkand manuscript in the Soviet State Library in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, bear the marks of a date of authorship of ~AD 850. They are written in a form of Kufic script which arose in the Abbasid period (~AD 750-850) and are adorned with 9th century embellishments.

The oldest Qur’an, according to forensic dating, is in the British Library. It dates to around AD 790; almost 150 years after Muhammad’s death.

Muslims defend their inability to produce early manuscripts by saying that the Qur’an was originally passed down orally and that early copies have disintegrated. But Muslim tradition itself tells us that the Qur’an was written down 20 years after Muhammad died and we have other Arab literature that has survived from the 7th century. We know that there were secretaries during the Ummayad Dynasty (AD 660-750) and that Muhammad himself worked on a caravan where written records of transactions would have been kept.

The defence of disintegration can be applied to the early New Testament documents which were written on papyrus. However the earliest Qur’ans were written on parchment, a far more robust material. Many of the early Christian parchment manuscripts (such as the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus) have been preserved in extremely good condition despite predating the Qur’an by several centuries.

The missing manuscripts are a huge embarrassment to Islam and raise serious questions about whether what Muslims now have are accurate copies of the original. Some scholars are proposing that the Qur’anic text was not standardised until the Abbasid period (AD 750).

Imitable Style

The Qur’an bases its claim of divine authorship on its supposed inimitability. Christians who question the book’s origin are challenged to ‘Bring then a Sura (chapter) like unto it’ (Sura 10:38). The Qur’an’s literary beauty is supposed to prove that it could not have been ‘produced by other than Allah’ (S 10:37).

But is the Qur’an beautiful? Many genuine seekers find its haphazard arrangement, jumbled chronology and endless repetition an insurmountable obstacle. Muslims usually object that the real beauty can only be appreciated in Arabic; and yet great works of literature like Solzenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and the Hebrew Psalms retain their beauty in English translation. (If in doubt compare Psalm 23 and Sura 109 in English translation and judge for yourself).

Even if we give the Qur’an the benefit of the doubt, is beauty proof of divine origin? Many people would agree that Shakespeare’s plays, Hopkins’ poetry and Vivaldi’s music are magnificent. Indeed, they may lead us to worship God as the giver of such creative talent, but we don’t therefore conclude that only God’s supernatural dictation could have produced these works of art.

In any case, beauty is to some extent subjective an the final judges will always be Muslims, duty-bound to reject any challenge out of hand.

Gerhard Nehls has produced an impressive list of ‘beautiful suras’ in English in his book Christians ask Muslims as noted in the last issue of Isa Masih. A selection of Arabic suras was recently removed from the internet after America On Line faced a barrage of Muslim protests.

Borrowed Stories

Those reading the Qur’an for the first time cannot help but be struck by the number of stories about biblical characters which do not tally with what we know from other historical sources. The usual Muslim defence is to say that the Bible has been changed [but see article on 'Your Bible has been corrupted'- Ed]. However, now we are beginning to identify the real sources for the Qur’an’s mythology.

The account of a raven showing Cain how to hide his brother’s body (S 5:30-32) has its origins in the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, the Targum of Jerusalem and the Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar; all apocryphal Jewish writings from the Talmud dating from AD 150-200.

The story of Abraham breaking the idols (S 21:51-71) comes from a set of second century Jewish folktales called theMidrash Rabbah; and the bizarre account of the Queen of Sheba lifting her skirts to walk across a mirrored floor (S 27:44) is derived from a second century apocryphal document called the Targum of Esther.

Equally strange stories from the childhood of Jesus, such as his making real pigeons from clay (S 3:49), and speaking from the cradle (S 19:29-33) originate in the History of Nativity, the First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ andThomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, further fanciful fiction from the early Christian era.

Contradictions and Inaccuracies

The contradictions in the Qur’an are well recognised and have been extensively documented elsewhere.

But perhaps even more damaging to Islamic beliefs about the Qur’an are the factual errors that litter the text. Mary, rather than the Holy Spirit, is identified as the third person of the trinity in Sura 5:119. She is also called the sister of Aaron (Moses’ brother) despite the fact that the two lived 1,500 years apart in history (S 19:28).

We are told in Sura 20:85-87 that a Samaritan was responsible for casting the golden calf of the Exodus, when in fact the Samaritans did not come into existence until after the Jewish exile hundreds of years later. In a similar vein Haman (Esther’s Persian enemy) is identified as a servant of the Egyptian pharoah at the time of Moses.

Once we appreciate that the Bible was not available in Arabic until the mid eighth century, it becomes clear how such glaring fallacies may have found their way into the Qur’an through corrupted oral tradition and hearsay.

Conclusions

Could God really be responsible for a book for which there is so little early manuscript evidence and containing so many inaccuracies? Surely the evidence speaks for itself.

Has the Bible been corrupted? A common Muslim objection to Christianity answered

It is fruitless to try sharing the Gospel with a Muslim who thinks the Bible has been corrupted. Even if he were persuaded to reject the Qur’an, he would never accept the implications of the Bible until he became convinced of its authenticity. Bear in mind a Muslim believes that every word of the Qur’an was written by God and brought to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It is no wonder that Muslims see the Bible, written by over 40 men including a prime minister (Daniel), fishermen (Peter), a doctor (Luke) and prisoners (Jeremiah, Paul) over almost 2000 years as human and fallible by comparison. To compare the Bible with the Qur’an is therefore not to compare like with like. However, as we shall see, it is logically impossible for the Bible to have corrupted.

Qur’an confirms Bible

We begin with what the Qur’an says about the Bible; many verses actually confirm that it is God’s Word and has not been changed. Here are a few examples:

•sura 5:43 ‘How come they to you for judgement when they have the Torah, wherein are contained the commandments of God?’
•s5:44 ‘We [God] did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and light...’
•s5:46 ‘We sent Jesus...confirming that which was revealed before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and light...’
•s5:68 ‘[Jews and Christians] have no guidance until you observe the Torah and the Injil [Gospel]’
•s4:136 ‘Believe in God and His messenger [Muhammad], and the Scripture which He revealed to His messenger [the Qur’an] and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime [the Bible]’
•s10:91 ‘If you [Muhammad] are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto you, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before you’
•s15:9 ‘We reveal the Reminder, and Lo! We truly are its Guardian [ie the Bible is guarded against corruption by God]’
•s6:34 ‘There is none to alter the Words of Allah’; s10:64 ‘There is no changing of the Words of Allah.’

When?

If the Bible was corrupted, was this before or after Muhammad? If before, why does God tell Muhammad to refer to a corrupted Scripture for guidance, and why does he say of the Torah and Gospel ‘wherein is guidance and light’ rather than ‘wherein there used to be before they were corrupted’? If after Muhammad, why does the Muslim not accept the Bible, since current translations are all based upon manuscripts that predate Muhammad?

How?

If it was corrupted, was this by Jews or Christians? Since neither were on speaking terms with each other (s2:113 ‘The Jews say the Christians follow nothing [true] and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing [true], yet both are readers of the Scripture’, see also 5:82), how could they agree to alter every single Bible identically?

The New Testament books were widely distributed as soon as they were written. By the 6th century, there were 230 biblical manuscripts in existence, translated into eight languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Nubian, Georgian and Ethiopic). How could a conspiracy to change each Bible have been logistically possible? Why was there no record of this happening, and why did nobody try to stop it or hide authentic Bibles?

The ‘Jesus Papyrus’ of Matthew 26, displayed in Magdalene College and recently dated to AD 68, was found in Egypt. Presumably Matthew was still alive when it was written - so why did he not try to correct it if it had been tampered with? Why did the Christians not remove embarrassing stories like Peter’s denial of Christ (Matt 26:69-75) or Paul and Barnabas’ disputation (Acts 15:39)?

Why?

What is the Bible’s testimony of itself? ‘All Scripture is God-breathed...’ (2 Tim 3:16); Peter describes Paul’s writings as Scripture, since some people maliciously distort his teaching ‘as they do the other Scriptures’ (2 Pet 3:16). ‘The Law was given through Moses’ (John 1:17) and Jesus said ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). His words are ‘spirit and life’ (John 6:63) and He has the ‘words of eternal life’ (John 6:68).

Why would anybody dare to add or remove portions of Scripture, when faced with the warning in Rev 22:18-19: ‘If anybody adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anybody takes words away from this book of prophecy God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city....’?

Early commentators

Significantly, the early Muslim commentators (eg. Bukhari, al-Razi) were all agreed that the Bible could not be changed since it was God’s Word and several centuries passed before Muslims claimed that the Bible had been changed, when they carefully read the stories in the Qur’an and noted that they were different from those in the Bible.

Verses misused

The verses used to support corruption in the Bible have been totally misused by Muslims.

For example s2:42 ‘Confound truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth’ was said to have come to Muhammad after two Jews were brought to him for judgement, having committed adultery. The other Jews wanted to test him to see if he, as a prophet of God, knew what was in the Torah. So he asked for a Torah and got a boy to read the punishments for disobedience. When the boy reached Lev 20:10 (‘if a man commits adultery with another man’s wife....both must be put to death’) the Jew accused of adultery slammed his hand over the verse so the boy could not read it (source: Abu Dawood 4449 (Arabic) or 4432 (English)). A far cry from corrupting the text of the Bible.

Other verses say that a group of Jews used to listen to Scripture then change it - but (i) it was only a group, not all the Jewish people around the world let alone in Mecca; (ii) they must have had the original genuine copies in order to have been accused of changing it; and (iii) they did not change the written text, but simply told Muhammad that it said things which were not there, in order to mislead him.

Conviction

If a Muslim says ‘Your Bible has been corrupted’, we should challenge him to prove it, by asking when, how and why. It is important that we demonstrate our conviction in this matter- and if our Muslim friend cannot support his accusation, it must be withdrawn.

What can St Paul teach us about evangelism to Muslims?

Christians and Muslims agree… on the reality of God, revelation, scripture, angels and judgment. But they also disagree; about Christ’s identity, death and resurrection and the authority of the Bible. Given these similarities and differences, what evangelistic approach should we adopt? Should we ‘build bridges’ or attack false teaching? Should we contextualise or confront?

Contextualisers claim that confrontation alienates unbelievers. Muslims must be gently coaxed. A horse led unwillingly will not drink. Argument doesn’t convert.

On the other hand confronters reply that contextualisation dilutes the gospel. Strongholds must be demolished. False teaching must be exposed.

What were Paul’s methods? On one hand he was a contextualiser, using a different approach for each audience. In the synagogue he established common ground by appealing to Jewish history and Old Testament Scripture (Acts 13:13-51); with the farmers at Lystra he spoke of God’s control of the seasons (14:14-18); with the philosophers in Athens he quoted their own poetry (17:22-31). He took the truth they already knew to establish rapport.

On the other hand he ‘reasoned’ (17:17), ‘discussed’ (19:9), ‘argued persuasively’ (19:8) and confronted (13:46). He summed up his ministry by saying ‘...we try to persuade’, (2 Cor 5:11), ‘... we demolish arguments and every pretension’ (2 Cor 10:5).

Contextualisation lays a foundation for debate. But if we do not move on to challenge the wrong beliefs of our listeners we are not telling the whole truth. On the other hand if we merely confront Muslims without establishing common ground our arguments will fall on deaf ears. Just as contextualisation can become the refuge of the cowardly, so confrontation can be the defence of the uncaring.

However, Paul did more than just contextualise and confront. He preached the gospel: Christ’s divinity, incarnation, death, resurrection and coming in judgment. This resulted in one of two responses. Some ‘received the message with great eagerness’ (Acts 17:11), ‘were persuaded’ (17:4) and ‘believed’ (17:34). Others ‘sneered’ (17:32), ‘became abusive’ (18:6) and ‘stirred up persecution’ (13:49).

If we build bridges or attack false teaching without preaching the gospel, then we are failing in our witness. Paul’s primary concern was neither to build friendships nor win arguments. Rather, his heart’s desire and prayer was that people be saved (Rom 10:1) through hearing the gospel (1:16). His priority was to win people to Christ. His strategy involved both contextualisation and confrontation; but always with the aim of preaching Christ crucified.

We are wise to follow his example.