The Bible
The Bible comprises:
1. God’s statements (at times printed in red)
2. Prophets’/Apostles’ traditions and
3. The report of events of Biblical times

In Islam, the ‘God’s statements (Qur’an) is completely separated from the ”Prophet’s/Apostles’ traditions”.

Muslims’ Ignorance
It is a pity that Muslims, who mistakenly imagine the Holy Bible to be like the Qur’an, quote the ‘reports’ and ‘traditions’ parts of the Bible in their efforts to proof that “the Bible is contradictory etc and therefore it is not God’s statements” instead of them to quote the Biblical God’s statements. Nevertheless, their arguments are normally simplistic.

The Hadith
It should be noted that Hadith, the Islamic equivalent of the portion of the Bible often capitalised upon by the Muslims, is the most contradictory and controversial book on Earth.

In the Hadith, to virtually every story or law there are radical or contradictory versions.

Qur’an/Hadith
Though successive revisions and corrections of the Qur’an have made it more consistent than Hadith, even Uthmanic version, the last version of the Qur’an, has created more questions than answers and left so many vital questions unanswered. Thus more fabrications and plagiarisms aimed at complementing even this last version of the Qur’an were made and added, not to the Qur’an as would have been preferred but, to the Hadith because the Qur’an had erstwhile been publicly declared as haven been perfectly completed.

Consequently the Hadith, which is supposed to solely be Traditions of Muhammad (Interpretation of the Qur’an) exceeds its scope such that it contains, in addition to Quranic elements:

i. Some big pre-Islamic stories/religious laws that are not traceable to the Qur’an and were logically plagiarised from the Bible and para- phrased.

ii. Some stories/religious laws that are by their virtue, supposed to be divine revelations and, therefore, originate from the Qur’an, but are curiously, not traceable to the Qur’an.

Examples of Hadth Exceeding its Scope (including Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim)
i. Hadis-al-Qudsi (supposed Allah ’s statements), which are not traceable to the Qur’an.
ii. The Second Coming of Jesus (and some funny details), which are not traceable to the Qur’an.
iii. How to pray in Islam which, you may not believe it, is not traceable to Allah ’s statements (Qur’an).
iv. The coming of the Dijjal on the Last Day and the reversed movement of the Sun by then, which is not from Qur’an.
v. Some additional sexually incredible stories of the said Paradise gift damsels (Hurul-in) and many other materials that are supposed to have been originally stated by Allah but are curiously not traceable to the Qur’an.

Indisputable Evidences of Corruption of The Qur’an
The evidences of mutilations even in the current (Uthmanic) version of the Qur’an include the following:

a. ALIF. LAM. MIN (which has been rendered meaningless by wrongful removal of some connective letters or words)
b. KAF. YA. A. IN. SAD ” ”
c. TA. SIN ” ”
d. ALIF. LAM. MIN. SAD ” ”
e. TA. SIN. MIN ” ”
f. ALIF. LAM. RA. ” ”
g. ALIF. LAM. MIN. RA etc etc. These evident corruptions occurred more than thirty (30) times in the Qur’an. What is clear is that God could not have made such meaningless statements. And if He did Prophet Muhammad would logically have asked Him (God) their meanings.

The So-called Variant Readings of the Qur’an (actually various versions of the Qur’anic verses and phrases)
Let me start from the Islamic sources themselves. According to ‘wise’ Islamic Scholars, the reason for these various versions is that, “When Qur’an was collated and compiled, the scribes and copyists wrote the text without using any diacritical points or marks. They relied on their familiarity with the text for correct reading. However, with passage of time the readers of the Qur’an faced difficulties in this respect and they came to read and understand the verses in ways that differed slightly from one another”. See AL-TAWHID, 1990 Vol. vii, no. 3 page 41. (P.O. Box 14155, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran).

The AL-TAWHID stated that versions of fourteen (14) reciters were originally chosen of which seven (7) have been considered the ‘mutawatir’ (most reliable), three as ‘ahad’ and the other four as ‘shadhah’.

AL-TAWHID adds, “Some like Jalal al-din al-Balqini, have accepted this classification while some like al-Suyuti consider the tawatur’ (authenticity) of the seven readers as doubtful for the following reasons:-

i. Because they have been transmitted through ‘Akhbar ahad’.
ii. Because some of the seven qurra (readers) were not reliable (muwaththaq) as narrators.
iii. Because those qira’at (readings) depended on subjective judgement (ra’y) and personal ‘ijtihad’ (thought) of the qurra. Had these been received through ‘tawatur’ from the Messenger of Allah there would have been no need of proof to establish their authenticity.
iv. Because some scholars have rejected some instances in the readings of the seven qurra”

AL-TAWHID continues “According to al-Zarakshi in al-Burhan fi ulum al-Qur’an (i, 318), those who believe in these seven qira’at being mutawatur (reliable) do so on the following bases:-

i. They claim ‘ijma’ (consensus) on the affirmation of their tawatur.
ii. They furnish evidence in favour of their authenticity on the bases of the care exercised by the ‘Sahabah’ (Muhammad’s companions) in the memorization and recitation of the Qur’an.
iii. They argue that not to regard these qira’at as ‘mutawatir’ necessarily leads to regarding the Qur’an also as non ‘mutawatir ‘.”

Another Moslems’ book titled ‘ITHBAT AN-NUBUWWA (THE PROOF OF PROPHETHOOD)’ noted that some Islamic scholars doubted the authenticity of Qur’an as compiled, maintaining that even “The Sahabah (Muhammad’s companions) were in doubt about some parts of the Qur’an. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (radi-Allahu’anh) said that surat al-fatiha and suras of ‘Mu’awwizatan’ did not belong in the Qur’an. However, these three suras (chapters) are most renowned suras of the Qur’an….”.
In response, the book claim, “Sahabahs doubt about some suras belonging to the Qur’an….was because each of the suras was only reported by one person. According to the principle of ‘usul al-hadith’, information transmitted by one reporter is not certain, but doubtful…., there was disagrement as to wether or not they (the suras) belong to the Qur’an, which brings no harm agaisnt our (Moslems’) cause”

Obviously, the doubting scholars cited Mas’ud because he, as shown by many Hadith (including that of Bukhari and Muslim) had been rated by Prophet Muhammad himself as the best of all reciters. In fact, even if the above given reason is the only and the only cause of Mas’ud’s disbelieve in such chapters, his action was not only the best by the law of logic but even by the Qur’an itself (5:109-111, 24:4-10). Thus the ‘fakeness’ of the doubtful chapters.

The book acknowledges that the doubting scholars pointed out that “there have been disagreements concerning both the recitation and the meaning of the Qur’an among the scholars of Islam. On the other hand, Allahu-ta-ala intimates that the Qur’an contains no points of disagrement. For example He declares in the eight-first ayat of surat an-Nisa: ‘Were this Qur’an the word of some one other than Allah , it would contain many incongruities’…”

According to this book, the doubting scholars cite the incongruities which, in the light of surat an-Nisa, imply human authorship of the Qur’an as:-

i. Some read a phrase in surat al-Qaria: 81 as:
“Kal’ ihni’l-man-fush” while others read it as “Kassafi’l-manfush”

ii. Some read surat al-Jum’a: 9 as:
“fas’aw ila dhikri’llah” while others read it as “famdu ila dhikrillah”

iii. Some read surat al-Baqara: 61 as:
“alaihimu’ dh-dhillata wa’l-maskanata” while others read it as “alaihimu’l-maskanata wa’dh-dhillata”

The doubting scholars, the book noted, conclude, “The disagreement pertaining to meanings in the Qur’an can be examplified as follows:

i. The 19th ayat of surat Saba’ states, ‘Rabbana ba’id baina asfarina’. Which means, ‘Our Rabb! Take our books way from us? It is an invocation to Allah .
Some read it as, ‘Rabbana ba’ada baina asfarina’ which means, ‘Our Rabb has taken our books away from us”

ii. The 115th ayat of surat Ma’ida says, ‘Hal yastati’u Rabbuka’, which means ‘Will your Rabb accept your prayer?’.
Some read it as, ‘Hal tastali’u Rabbaka,’ which means, ‘Will you pray to your Rabb’ “.

Responding, the book acknowledges that the Quran ic verses were confirmed by (human) consensus and adds, “….Our Prophet (SAW) said, ‘The Qur’an was revealed on seven harps (readings) each of which is curative and sufficient.’ For this reason, the disagreement arising from the readings and the meanings of the Qur’an do not undermine its being ‘Mu’jiz’, said the book, ITHBAT AN_NUBUWWA (Waqf ikhlas Publications No. 9, TENTH EDITION, with address as:
HAKIKAT KITABEVI
Darrussefeka Cad. No. 57/A P.K. 35
34262-Faith ISTANBUL Tel: (90) (1) 523 45 56
TURKEY
1991

In his edition, a leading English Qur’an translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, explains two examples of the variant meanings among the present Qur’ans:

i. Qur’an 1:3
“Master of the Day of Judgment” and
“Sovereign of the Day of Judgment”

ii. Qur’an 5:6
“…wash your faces…and (wash) your feet” and
“…wash your faces and wipe your heads and (wipe) your feet”

Then he (Ali) claims, “..It is obvious from the two instances that in the variant readings, there is absolutely no contradiction in essence. On the other hand, they make the meaning all the more comprehensive. And the same is true of all the other variant readings”.

Readers, in the above examples, all given by Islamic authorities themselves, of the numerous inconsistencies that exist in the Qur’an, I still let you see the best excuse or reasons the renowned Islamic Scholars could themselves invent which (the ‘reasons’ ) only expose how a mere consensus book and, therefore fallible and controversial the Qur’an has always been. It does not require much intelligence to realize from the above that:
i. There is no original Qur’an at all and
ii. The Qur’an is full of evidences of its being produced by human being.

That is apparently why Ali takes solace in the escapist conclusion that in ‘essence’ the Qur’an does not contradict itself. That is because Ali knew that all the variant readings can’t be correct at the same time. They, logically and technically, could not have been uttered by Allah at the same time. So, only one can be correct in every category. Even the mildest variant reading Ali cleverly cited of ‘Master’ and ‘Sovereign’ still implies that the Qur’an has been tempered with. Allah could only have said ‘Master’ or ‘Sovereign’. Other inconsistencies are evident at a glance.

More Inconsistencies in the Qur’an
Compare Qur’an 3:45-49 and 19:17-20 (Allah account of Jesus birth. Compare the corresponding words in capital)

Qur’an 3:45 “…the ANGELS said ‘OH MARY! LO! Allah GIVES YOU A GLAD TIDING OF A WORD FROM HIM. WHOSE NAME IS MESSIAH, SON OF MARY, A SIGN IN THE WORLD AND HEREAFTER AND ONE OF THOSE CLOSE TO Allah . 46 HE WILL TALK TO MANKIND IN HIS CRADLE AND HIS MANHOOD. AND HE IS AMONG THE RIGHTEOUS. 47 She said ‘MY LORD how can I have a son when no man has touched me? He said SO IT WILL BE. Allah CREATES WHAT HE WISHES. IF HE DECREES A THING HE JUST SAY TO IT ‘be’ AND IT WILL. 48 AND HE WILL TEACH HIM SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM AND TORAH AND GOSPEL. 49 AND HE WILL MAKE HIM A MESSENGER TO ISRAELITES”.

QUR’AN 19:17 “…then we sent to her (Mary) our spirit (angel) and he assumed to her the likeness of a perfect man. 18 She said ‘LO! SEEK REFUGE FROM THE BENEFICIENT ONE ABOUT YOU, IF YOU ARE A GOD FEARING ONE. 19 He Said ‘I AM JUST A MESSENGER OF YOUR LORD, THAT I MAY GIVE YOU A FAULTLES SON. 20 She said ‘How can I have a son when no man has touched me AND I HAVE NOT BEEN UNCHASTE? He said ‘SO IT WILL BE YOUR LORD SAID IT IS EASY FOR US. AND IT WILL BE THAT WE WILL MAKE HIM A REVELATION TO MANKIND AND MERCY FROM US IT IS A THING ORDAINED”.

For more inconsistencies compare:-

Qur’an 7:11-13 with 38:72-78, with 15:28:34; especially 7:13-18 with 38:77-86, with 15:34-44 and with 17:62-65.

Qur’an 3:7-8 with 39:23, 11:1, 16:89, 2:185, 54:17, 27:1; especially 3:7-8 with 16:89, 54:17 and 11:1.

Qur’an 29:16-18 with 21:51-57 with 37:83-90 with 26:69-82; especially 21:57-58 with 37:89-93, 21:58-66 with 37:97-99

Qur’an 3:45-49 with 19:17-20; especially 3:45-46 with 19:19, 3:47 with 19:20, 3:47-49 with 19:20

Qur’an 7:120-124, with 20:70-73; especially 7:120-122 with 20:70, 7:123-124, 20:71, 7:125-126 and 20:72-73

Qur’an 29:31-32 with 51:24-34, 15:51-60, 11:69-76

Qur’an 11:77-83 with 15:61-74.

Qur’an 3:38-40 with 19:2-10, 21:89-90.

Qur’an 28:29 with 20:9-10, 27:7-12.

Qur’an 28:30 with 20:11-16, 27:8-11.

Qur’an 20:21 with 28:31, 27:10-11.

Qur’an 28:32 with 20:22-24, 27:12.

Qur’an 28:33-34 with 20:25-35.

Qur’an 20:65 with 10:79-81.

Qur’an 20:65 with 10:81, 7:115.

Qur’an 28:34 with 7:109-115, 20:57-64, 10:79-81.

What came from one person (God) is supposed to at least be consistent. Therefore the Qur’an did not come from one person (God), because other than human factor there is no honest or realistic reason for its inconsistecies.

ARE THERE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE HOLY BIBLE?
Unlike the Qur’an, the Bible did not come from one person. Pathetically, the Muslims mistakenly see the Bible as the Christian equivalent of their Qur’an. So, like I said earlier, they cite wrong parts of the Bible to proof that the Christian Word of God is contradictory.

Even then, logically, the seeming inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible are what confirm its genuineness. Such parts of the Holy Bible were observations and writings of VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS and under VARIOUS CONDITIONS. Scientifically, such reports are subject to INDIVIDUALITY and CONDITIONALITY unless they are edited. Therefore, this existence of ‘INDIVIDUALNESS’ and ‘CONDITIONALITY’ is logically a strong proof that the individual Biblical account have never been edited; and are not fictions in which case they would have been identically written by all the collaborators, but are true and historical events writen independently by various individuals.

Example of CONDITIONALITY
Mark (10:46-52) says that Jesus healed while LEAVING Jericho. But Luke (18:35-43) says while ENTERING Jericho. This, as a Western Reverend writer observes in his book, had been thought to be (as it is apparently) a sharp contradiction until the excavation of Earnest Sellen of the German Oriental Society (citing ‘Archeology and Bible History page 295), when it was discovered that the Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city–Jewish (old) Jericho and Roman (modern) Jericho, such that LEAVING one could as well mean ENTERING the other.

Therefore both Mark and Luke are perfectly right. Their various versions were caused by the CONDITION of the then Jericho namely, its double-city nature.

Example of INDIVIDUALITY
Because Mark and Luke (as in the case above) did not collaborate but rather independently wrote, INDIVIDUALITY became obvious in their judgments. Thus while one of them ‘conservatorially’ regarded regarded the original (Jewish) Jericho as the (actual) Jericho, the other ‘modernly’ regarded the administrative (Roman) Jericho as (currently) the Jericho.

Other Examples
i. Mark (1:6) says, “John’s food was ONLY locust and honey”, while Mathew (11:18) says, “John came NEITHER eating nor drinking.

Here, while Mark considered the ‘exact aspect’ of John’s feeding, Mathew on the other hand considered the ‘comparative’ or ‘metaphorical’ aspect .

ii. According to John (19:17) Jesus bore his cross up to the Golgotha. But according to Luke (23:26), one Simon was later on forced to carry the cross to follow Jesus. ‘A clear contradiction!! ‘, Muslims would exclaim. But the fact is that the then Jerusalem was a large and walled city and Golgotha was a place just outside Jerusalem. Normally, Jesus most have bore his cross from the Pilate’s Court to as far as outside the Jerusalem Wall and within the premises of the Golgotha before the Simon, who was not even an accused, was nevertheless forced to just take over form the apparently too fatigued Jesus to the exact crucifixion spot.

Therefore, while John ignored the ‘negligible’ contribution of Simon, Luke on the other hand, recognized it, perhaps for historical record.

Naturally, ‘INDIVIDUALITY’ and ‘CONDITIONALITY’ variously manifest any time a historical event is independently reported by different individuals and or when there is a difference of condition.

These types of situations are what Muslims simplistically referred to as contradictions in the Bible.
It should be noted, however, that the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Qur’an can not be explained in terms of ‘CONDITIONALTY’ and ‘INDIVIDUALITY’ because the Qur’an as a whole was supposedly uttered by one person (God). Of course if there exist contradictions in the direct words of God in the Bible, they likewise can not be explained in that ways. But there is non in actual sense.

May the Almighty Yahweh open the eyes of my Muslim friends to see the light of Christ.

Does it not say:

That is Allah , your Lord, there is no god but He; the Creator of all things, therefore serve Him, and He has charge of all things.

There is no man greater than his brother. There is only one greater, and that is Allah . Allah owns all things and we are given them to share amongst us. Learn to share that which is Allah ’s in the first place. Share your lives, your possesions, your food and your faith. Give up your claims to oil, land and material goods so that you may follow Allah in the Spirit. Is all not Allah ’s? So why do you dispute?

Does it not say:

And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards; and Allah does not love the unjust.

The seeds of the polytheist are many. Look at the man that worships money, or believes he can give worldly goods in trade for a place in the heavens. Or, of the man that uses his wealth to rule over his brothers and sisters. Allah cares not about the weight of a purse, only the weight of the heart. Is all not Allah ’s? So why do you dispute?

You know in your heart what is just and unjust. Show man the good in your heart and he will follow you. Show man the evil in your heart and he will fight you.

As Isa states:

Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

Be as brothers and love one another. What does a man gain from being good to those who are good to him? Be just to the unjust, as Allah also gives rain to feed the spiteful and transgressors in hope that they will live to see the day that they request forgiveness. The day is not over until the night comes. The same is for man to request forgiveness, the ability does not end but by the last breath that he takes, by the Grace of Allah . Is all not Allah ’s? So why do you dispute?

Peace be unto you, my brethren!

John..your concerns are addressed here http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/corruption-of-the-bible-the-final-judgement/

http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/

None of those gospels were written by eye witnesses. None of them are authoritative. They were left out because they were not written by people who knew Jesus personally.

We have a partial of the original Gospel of Matthew. In that Gospel, Matthew ***CLEARLY*** speaks of Jesus as being God. You don’t get this from the English translations. If you go to the original Koine Greek, you see it very clearly. This partial dates to 66 AD, it was found in Eqypt, and since it is the original, it has been unedited.

The fact is, the people who knew Jesus personally, all knew that He was God and not just a messenger.

Ok but I wonder how christians can judge according to the Injeel if this last that have with them is not authentic.

Perhaps, when He says “The Injeel”, Allâh, swt, mentions the Jesus Christ’s gospel which is today disperse into canonical and apocryphia’s gospels and that christian’s scholars can reconstitute at any time, no ?

I have a question dear brother:

Some Christian missionaries as Dr. William Campbell claim that the Holy Qu’ran confirms the Torah and the Gospel that Jews and Christians have with them, and they quote the phrase “Musaddiqan limaa bayna yadaihe” (in Surah 3:3, 5:48), which means according to them, “Which confirms that, which is at hand “.

Is it a valid translation according to you ?

Make sure to catch ‘Ban from the Bible’ on History channel. It plays it ever so often.