1) The present Bible cannot be the original one as it does not agree with the Qur'an.

2) Though corrupted the present Bible contains some parts of the original truth, e.g. the Unity of God, punishment and reward, and the significance of the coming of the last prophet, Muhammad. It is these parts only which the Qur'an is said to confirm and protect.

3) Where is the Gospel of Jesus? Did he not take it to heaven?

4) Which of the four gospels is the one which descended on Jesus, the son of Mary?

5) The Bible was already corrupted and interpolated at the time of the appearance of the prophet Muhammad "by the presence in it of statements about the Divinity and Sonship of Jesus and the teachings of the Trinity and Jesus' supposed death on the cross and his resurrection from the grave".

6) "The gospels did exist in their present form in the 5th century of the Christian era. The corruption, therefore, had already occurred in the Word of God".

7) Latter day Christians have not been able to preserve the Holy Injil "on account of their forefathers' erasing the statements concerning the advent o f Muhammad ".

As the Taurat was abrogated by the coming of the Zabur, and the Zabur by the Injil so the entire Bible is abrogated by the Qur'an.

The primary purpose of this article is to help the Christian evangelist to examine dispassionately certain outstanding difficulties which the Muslim people experience in regard to the Christian faith, and, at the same time, so to restate the truths involved as to leave at least no reasonable ground for misunderstanding, Some of these difficulties are traditional, and have been handed down without intermission since the early days of Islam.

Of these some can be shown to have arisen from original misunderstanding and to have continued for the same reason, or through misrepresentation not necessarily wilful. There has been bitter criticism of the things we hold dear, due, primarily, to violent reaction against the work of missionary apologists who, in their preaching and writing, not only defended the Christian position but sought to establish its superiority pointing out defects in Islam and its founder. This attitude and its significance will also receive our attention.

Before we can deal, however, with those subjects which more properly appertain to the faith of the Church we are obliged, at the outset, to consider in some detail the marked prejudice of Muslims concerning the Bible. They are assiduously taught to believe, and do for the most part profess to believe, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments now in circulation are not genuine. The reasons commonly advanced for such belief are that the original writings have been,

(1) Corrupted, i.e. tampered with, muharraf. It is contended that there have been, at some time or other, alterations, omissions, and additions in our Scriptures; in particular that statements about the Deity and Sonship of Christ, the Trinity, the death on the cross and subsequent resurrection, have been deliberately inserted, where references to Muhammad have been suppressed;

(2) Abrogated, annulled, mansukh; i.e. by the "descent of the Qur'an; so that the Bible is no longer authoritative. Closely connected with this idea is the claim that the Qur'an is in itself a compendium of all true and necessary teaching contained in the earlier books supplemented by further revelation.

Occasionally the New Testament, as we have it, is declined for the quaint reason, held by some, that Jesus at the time of His Ascension took the original Injil with Him to heaven.

No matter what particular connotation the term muharraf may have for him, the Muslim almost invariably rests. (# the act is termed tahrif, a word. which, strictly speaking signifies the transposition of letters in words, thereby effecting "alteration", but Muslims usually employ the term. when bringing a charge of textual corruption.) His case for the corruption of the Bible on what he thinks the Qur'an has to say about the question. For him that Book is the final court of appeal, seeing that he believes it to contain only the ipsissima verba of God.

While reserving to ourselves the right to determine this matter on quite other grounds, we shall nevertheless find it profitable, both for, ourselves and for Muslims, if we make a close study of the numerous references in the Qur'an to our Scriptures. In an article of this size, however, a mere summary of our findings must suffice, but no statement there having a vital bearing on the subject will be overlooked.

It is, in the circumstances, of no small interest to find that the Qur'an always speaks of the earlier books with respect— in such terms, indeed, as to leave the very definite impression that Muhammad, at any rate, believed in their divine origin and genuineness. The impartial student will naturally wish first to scrutinize all such language, and then, in the light of its significance, turn his attention to those passages which Muslims persuade themselves contain charges of corruption in the text of the Bible. That is the course we now propose to follow.

We begin with a consideration of the following facts:

(a) "We did give the Book, Taurat, to Moses", Surah 32:23; cp. 2:50, 81; 11:112; 21:49; 25:37; 37:117; 40:56; 41:45; 45:15. The Pentateuch is clearly intended in all these passages.

(b) "To David We gave the Psalms. Zabur". Surah 17:57; also 4:161.

(c) "We gave him (Jesus) the Evangel, Injil ", Surah 5:50; cp. 19:31; 57:27.and that

d) "He sent down the Taurat and the Injil for the guidance of mankind", Surah 3: 2.

(a) "the Book of God", 5:48; cp.2:95; 3:22

(b) "the Word of God", 2:70.

(c) "Al Furqan", i.e. the illumination, 21:49; 2:50; a title of distinction applied also to the Qur'an, 3:2.

(d) "the perspicuous (or enlighning) Book", 3:181. Jalaluddin in his commentary, says the Taurat and Injil are here indicated.

(e) " a light and guidance to man... -a decision for all matters and a guidance and a mercy - - - - complete for him who acts aright". Surah 6:91,155.

(a) "Verily We have inspired thee (Muhammad) as "We inspired Noah and the Prophets after him ", 4: 161; 21:7; 42:1; 3:66.

(b) "They (the Jews) have inherited the Book" 7:168; cp.42: 13

(c) "they have already the Taurat in which is God's judgement", 5:47; 3:75.

{d} Jews and Christians are said to be diligent readers of their Scriptures, 2:41,107,115; 10:94; cp 3: 109.

(e) Those of the Jews "who hold fast by the Book will be rewarded, 7: l69; so, too, "if they (Jews and Christians) observe the Taurat and Injil". 5:70

(f) Jews and Christians are required not only to accept the Qur'an, but to believe in and observe the Taurat and Injil as well, e.g. "Ye have no ground to stand on until ye observe the Taurat and. Injil", 5:72; cp. 4: 135

(g) Muhammad himself is bidden believe in the Scriptures, and declares his unqualified faith in them; "Say. (O Muhammad) 'In whatsoever Books God hath sent down I believe' ", 42:14: 29:45; 3:78; cp. especially, "Ye (Muhammad and his people) believe in the Book, the whole of it", bil kitabi kullihi, 3:115. Also, "If thou art in doubt about that which We have sent down to thee, inquire of those who have read the Scriptures before thee", 10:94.

(a) verifies, attests, the previous Scriptures, e.g. "He hath sent down to thee (Muhammad) the Book (Qur'an) in truth, confirming what was before it....... the Taurat and the Injil", 3:2; 10:38; 46:46:11,29; :92; 2:38, 83, 91, 95;

And

(b) is "their safeguard", 5:52; which, the commentator Baidawl (l3th cent. A.D.) explains to mean. "A keeper over the whole of the (sacred) Books, such as shall preserve them from change, and witness to their truth and. authority.

The general tenor of all these passages, scattered throughout the Qur'an, establishes beyond question the fact that the earlier Books were held by Muhammad to be genuine and authoritative, because of their divine origin. Indeed, his main arguments with “the People of the Book” is just this—accept the Qur'an also, because it confirms what was sent down before it, e.g. "O ye, to whom the Scriptures have been given! believe in what "We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an), confirmatory of the Scripture which, is in your hands", 4:50.

We are now in a better position to determine the significance of those other references in the Qur'an to the earlier Scriptures, which Muslims cite in support of their contention that the text of the Bible has been wilfully tampered with.

In the light of what we have already found that is the last thing we should expect to hear from the lips of Muhammad. However, let us consider the following verses, which are typical and representative:

(a) "A part of them (Jews) heard the word of God and then, after they had understood it, perverted it, yuharrifunahu, (altered, corrupted), and knew that they did so", Surah 2:70— this is a general charge against the Jews with reference to their own Scripture's.

(b) "The ungodly ones among them (Jews) changed that word into another than that which had been told them", 7:161-2; explained as referring to an incident in Jewish history when, instead of saying hittat (forgiveness) as Divinely commanded, the Jews wilfully mispronounced the word to make it habbat (corn); cp. Jalaluddin on 2;56.

(c) "And, verily, there is a party of them (Jews) who twist their tongues concerning the Book (i.e. pervert it), that ye may suppose it to be from the Book, but it is not from the Book, They say 'It is from God', but it is not from God, and they tell a lie against God, and they know they do so", 3:72; cp. 4:48—the implication is that by a deceptive mode of recitation, in fact mispronunciation, passages were made to appear as coming from the Book, though in reality not there; in other words, the Jews were pretending that they were reading from their Scripture,

(d) "Woe to those (Jews) who with their own hands write, yaktubuna, (but corruptly) the Book, and then say, 'This is from. God.', so that they may take for it a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain"! Surah 2:73—said of ignorant Jews who sought to deceive Muhammad by presenting to him passages written out by them from their tradition sand rabbinical books, and asserting that they were authoritative and divine.

(e) "Clothe not the truth with falsehood and hide not the truth when ye know it". 2:39, The Tafsir -Ra'ufi paraphrases thus: "Do not mingle with the truth that the praise of Muhammad is recorded in the Taurat the lie of a denial" cp. also "Who is more unjust than he who hides a testimony which he hath received from God? "2:134. For other instances of such "concealment", see further 2:141, 154, 169; 3: 64; 6:91. Commenting on 5:47, Ibn Ishaq says that when asked to read out the verse of stoning for adultery in the Mosaic law a Jewish leader actually laid his hand on the incriminating verse, whereupon one named 'Abdullah ibn Salam, a renegade Jew, struck away the hand of the reader saying: "There, Prophet of God, then is the verse if stoning which he refuses to read to thee"!

(f) "Among the Jews are those who pervert, yuharrifuna, the words from their places and say, 'We have heard and we have not obeyed; and 'Hear thou, but (only) as one that hears not'; and, 'Look at us'—distorting (the words) with their tongues, taunting about religion. But if they would say (instead), 'We have heard and we obey'; 'Hear thou and regard us', it were better for them and more right" Surah 4:48-49. The complaint here made is that the Jew "perverted" words of salutation to make them sound like abuse cp.” Apostle! let not those.... vex thee.... who say with their mouths  'We believe', but whose hearts believe not, or the Jews—listeners to a lie—listeners to others—but who come not to thee. They pervert the words from their places". Surah 5:45.This charge (f) of perversion, or "dislocation", of words is quite general; the actual illustrations given at this place have nothing whatever to do with the Scriptures.

Two facts emerge from a consideration of these passages

(1) the people against whom Muhammad brings these charge are Jews, not Christians; no such complaint is made against the latter in any part of the Qur'an;

(2) even so, in no case are the Jews charged with having tampered with the text of their Scriptures. Indeed, after the evidence we have had of the high regard in which he held the earlier books it is unthinkable that by these expressions Muhammad intended to imply actual corruption of the text.

On the other hand, it may fairly be argued that these complaints rather testify to the genuineness of the Scriptures in Muhammad's day, for there can be no "mispronunciation "unless the right word is there; one cannot "write wrongly" unless the correct text be before one; there can be no "hiding the truth" unless one has the truth to hide. Such was the conclusion at which that careful scholar, Sir William Muir, arrived as long ago as 1855, after a most thorough investigation of the meaning of each. and every reference in the Qur'an to the earlier Scriptures.(# Muir, The Coran SPCK 1878)

His view was confirmed later by the eminent Indian Muslim, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarb College, who in 1862 wrote a treatise on the subject of tahrif to demonstrate to Muslims that in no place does the Qur'an charge the Jews and Christians with actual alteration of the text of their Scriptures.(# Syud Ahmad, The Mohammedan Commentary on the Holy Bible (7th Discourse) Ghaeepore, 1862) Sir Sayyid pointed out that early Muslim writers recognized, in theory, two forms of tahrif, viz.tahrif-i-lafzi, verbal corruption, i.e. of the text; and tahrif-i-ma'nawi, corruption of meaning, or interpretation.

He illustrates the two types as follows:

l. Tahrif-i-lafzi may be effected by

• Adding words or phrases not in the original text;

• Striking out words or phrases from the text;

• Substituting other words, differing in meaning from those struck out.

2. Tahrif-i-ma'nawi may be effected by:

• Making verbal changes while reading, so as to convey to the ear words different from what were written (# the author includes this type also in the first group, but maintains that the text was not affected.)

• Reading only some passages, and omitting others;

• Instructing people in a manner contrary to God's teaching in His Holy Word, and yet making them believe that this instruction is the true word;

• Adopting an improper meaning of certain, words of ambiguous or equivocal interpretation, which does not suit the sense intended;

• Misinterpreting those passages which are mystical and allegorical.

These, according to Sir Sayyid, exhaust the possible ways of tahrif, the offence of which lies in doing this kind of thing "knowingly", "wilfully", and with a view to "an obvious perversion of the true meaning of the text". He then goes on to say, "I do not at all intend to assert that all these methods were actually put into practice for the purpose of corrupting the Scriptures.

On the contrary, in the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption of the first three kinds was practised. Some doctors of our faith have, indeed, maintained that corruption of the first three kinds above mentioned must have been practised.... but on consideration it will appear that these arguments are not sound; nor do such alterations or interpretations (i.e. as they suggest) pertain to those corruptions which are spoken of in the holy Qur'an. -... .What we have to consider is whether all the copies of the Scriptures, scattered throughout Christendom and Judaism, did really go forth with corruption of the three kinds indicated…….Other more learned doctors of our faith have stated their deliberate conviction that no such corruption (i.e. of the tahrif-i-lafzi type) took place in the Scriptures, and have thus rejected the opinions advanced by those above mentioned."

The learned writer then proceeds to cite Muslim authors of repute in proof of his statement, e.g. Imam Bukhari (810-870 A.D,) who says there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what has proceeded from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meaning of the words of God (# The Mohommedan Commentary, pp 79 f.).

Also Fakhruddin Razi (1150-1210 A,D.) who, commenting on the words, "Verily, they who hide what God hath revealed of the Book, and sell it for a little price, they shall eat nothing in their bellies save fire", Surah 2:169, states, on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, a nephew of Muhammad, that :

"The Jews and early Christians were suspected, of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation, to generation. No interpolation could therefore be made in them, although it is admitted that some people used to conceal their true sense and interpretation" (op. cit., p 81).

Sir Sayyid devotes the remainder of his treatise to showing that, in the opinion of these and other authorities, the "corruption" which the Qur'an has in view, in such verses as we have quoted, is perversion of meaning and interpretation.

For instance, he quotes at length from Fakhruddin Razi, who expounds the significance of the words "clothing the truth with falsehood" in 2:39 and 3:64 thus: "The Jews were always denying the rightful interpretation of these prophecies, and busied themselves in captious and unprofitable disputations, and in striving, by over-strained arguments and illogical reasoning, to explain away their true meaning. It was then that this ayat was sent down from heaven enjoining them not to adulterate truth with falsehood, so as to mislead people by the doubts they cast upon the true sense of the disputed passages of Scripture.".. "The phrase 'knowingly hide the truth,' has reference to the dissembling conduct of the Jews, in that they perverted the sense of those prophecies in the Old Testament which pointed to the coming of Muhammad as God's Apostle. The right apprehension of those predictions demanded much thought and judgment, and the Jews used to strive to conceal the passages which conveyed the truth. (# op.cit., pp, 86 f.)"

In other words, the Jews are charged with concealing and lying about the contents of their Book and with twisting it with false interpretation. They are even likened in the Qur'an to an ass laden with valuable books, of the contents and value of which it is grossly ignorant, 62:5.

The naive comments of Fakhruddin Razi inevitably suggest to the mind the situation in which Muhammad found himself when confronted with the Jews, more especially at Medina. He had a controversy with them, and a particular aspect of it is reflected in these very passages we have been considering. While in Mecca he had formed a great respect for these people, themselves monotheists with a divinely -inspired Book; and from them he learned of predictions in their Scriptures concerning the advent of a prophet, whom God was to raise up.

For a time the Jews were cordial, being gratified at his " strong leaning towards, and respect for, their Scriptures and Histories". Thereafter Muhammad, claiming as he had done from the first God's call and commission, arrived at the point where he began to claim also that the Scriptures in the hands of the Jews actually foretold his coming.

The Qur'an itself makes this fact indubitably clear, e.g. "The ummi (# probably meaning illiterate) prophet, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat (and Injil)", 7:156.cp 10: 94; 6:20; 13:36; 2:169. Baidawi and Jalaluddin explaining the words, "who hide the Scriptures which God hath sent down", in the last of these, take them to mean "that which is made manifest in the Taurat regarding the description of Muhammad ".

But this claim was something which the Jews as a whole stoutly denied, and to this denial also the Qur'an bears witness; thus:

"When there came to them (the Jews) an apostle from God, affirming the previous revelations made to them, some of those to whom the Scriptures were given threw the Book of God behind their backs, as if they knew it not",(Surah 2:95)

Muhammad himself is evidently intended here; but the Jews, in this graphic phrase, indignantly rejected him. After all, their denial was quite natural, for what they did know from their Book was that the promised prophet would be through Isaac, the son of promise—a Jew, not through the son of Hagar—an Ishmaelite; for God had said to Abraham, "My covenant will I establish with Isaac"; and again, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called". Genesis, 17: 21; 21: 12. Moreover, it probably made them even more hostile towards him when they saw that he credited Jesus, son of Mary, with being the Messiah, whom their nation had already rejected. cp.3: 40.

Viewed now in the light of our findings the various 'complaints' in the Qur'an become intelligible. Muhammad, himself unable to read, was wont to seek information and confirmation about certain matters from their Scriptures at the hands of the Jews. It might be concerning the presence or otherwise in the Mosaic Law of the penalty of stoning for adultery, cp. 2: 73 and 5: 45, Baidawi, commenting on the latter verse, says that it had to do with the Jews' contradictions and contentions with Muhammad concerning the presence of "the verse of stoning" in their Scriptures.

More usually, however, it concerned the correct interpretation of passages in the Old Testament which Muhammad and his followers sought to appropriate as confirming his claims to be the prophet who should come. It was on such occasions that the Jews were charged with "changing", "hiding", and "transposing" words, and with "mispronouncing" them when asked to read out, or copy out, for Muhammad, passages from the Scriptures said to have reference to these matters. They adopted these devices, says the Qur'an, when repudiating the interpretation advanced by the prophet,

Strained relationships followed, as we gather from the Qur'an;

"Hast thou not marked those who have received a portion of the Scriptures, when they are summoned to the Book of God, that it may settle their differences? Then did a part of them turn back, and withdraw far off",(Surah 3: 22, 80)

And there seems plenty of evidence that the Jews teased Muhammad—the Qur'an records the embittered feelings on both sides,

"Of all men thou wilt certainly find the Jews.. . . to be the most intense in hatred of (Muslims)",
(Surah 5: 85)

But in this matter of his claim that their Scriptures contained predictions of his advent and his mission, they resolutely withstood him. What happened afterwards is a matter of history— Muhammad, having exhausted all means to gain their support, ruthlessly swept the Jews from his path. To this exasperation also the Qur'an bears witness,

"0 ye to whom the Scriptures have been given! believe in what We have sent down confirmatory of that which is in your hands, ere We deface your features, and twist your head round backward, or cursed you as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers",(Surah 4: 50; 2:154)

May it not be claimed that many of those Jews of Medina gave their lives in defence of their Book?