Question: Do you believe in the Qur'an? Answer: This question is more than a question: it is a challenge. The answer to that depends on which belief.
Do we believe the Qur'an is the eternal book of God, a faithful copy of what is written on the tablets in heaven, the only revelation of God existing today that is reliable, a book that can properly be understood only through the explanations of Islamic scholars? The answer is absolutely not.
Do we believe the Qur'an is a book inspired by Satan, as some Christians claim? The answer to that is no as well.
We take a middle-of-the-road stand, one that is based on reason and history, as explained below. We see the Qur'an to be an ancient writing differing little from the large body of Judeo-Christian literature that for various reasons did not make it into the 66-book Bible core canon accepted by essentially all Christians.
Our belief in Scripture is very clear. ”That the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, were given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of his will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” This refers to the 66 books of the Bible. They are inspired by God. All that is necessary is contained in them. Every point of doctrine must be based on evidence from these 66 books that make up the Bible.
This does not mean that no other books are inspired, but we agree that these 66 are inspired. This does not mean that other books do not contain the revelation of the will of God, or even in theory a full revelation of the will of God. Books that do not conflict with the Bible may be inspired. Some books that conflict with the Bible may contain references to revelation of the will of God. For example, there are many parallels between the Code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the Torah or books of Moses. Stealing and adultery are wrong and condemned in all three sources. The revelation of the will of God is fortunately all around us.
So what about the Qur'an? Historically speaking, there are a number of ancient writings that did not make it into the Bible. These are generally called apocryphal books. While the Hebrew books that made it into the Bible were affirmed by the Jewish council of Jamnia at the end of the first century C.E., and the Greek books that made it into the Bible were confirmed somewhat later by several church councils and church fathers, these councils did not invent the Bible. They merely confirmed an accomplished fact. The Bible was already in use and recognized as such. But there were many writings about which there was no general consensus, but rather disagreement.
Sometimes the disagreement was biased. No doubt the fact that Christians referenced the book of Enoch so effectively in favor of Jesus contributed to the fact that the Jews rejected it. No doubt the fact that the book of Enoch was so explicit in regard to the Sabbath contributed to the fact that it finally remained only in the Ethiopian Bible. For various reasons, there are a great many ancient writings that have had some claim to canonicity, belonging to the Bible, that did not make it into the big 66. Some of them may be inspired, others may not.
Some of them may be corrupted, others may not. An examination of the Qur'an shows that it shares many features with these early, Apocryphal Jewish and Christian writings. There are at least a dozen common features among the Qur'an, the book of Enoch and the book of Jubilees from the Ethiopian Apocrypha. These include reference to the heavenly tablets, the seventh-day Sabbath, the prohibition of adding a thirteenth month to the calendar, some angels by name, and other details. The Qur'an parallels New Testament apocrypha in such issues as reference to Jesus making birds from clay and speaking from the cradle. Based on content, the Qur'an is historically speaking definitely a part of the great body of Judeo-Christian apocryphal literature.
There are several things about the Qur'an that are unique. No other apocryphal work is written in exactly the same style. Muslims make a big issue of the inimical grand style of the Qur'an. They are certainly right about its exquisite and unique aesthetics. But they err, if they believe that no other religious classics approach that eloquence. The Hebrew Psalms and Proverbs certainly do. The Hindu Rig Veda is just as eloquent, just as exquisite, and just as untranslatable. We would take issue with those who deny the eloquence of the Qur'an.
The Qur'an is unique among apocryphal literature also in the fact that it has become the central canonical text of the last great world religion to arise. As such, it takes a special place in religious literature and represents the peak of evolution in the development of religious classics. But much of the uniqueness that Muslims claim for the Qur'an is simply ignorance of the fact that other books of eloquence containing amazing spiritual and scientific truths exist.
We relate to the Qur'an as we do to other books of the same type, ancient Judeo-Christian apocryphal works. When they conflict with the Bible, we reject them. When they confirm the Bible, we accept their historical significance.
After the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic church officially accepted twelve apocryphal books into the canon of Scripture. These have also often been published in Protestant Bibles. Violent opinions for and against apocryphal writing appear. Perhaps a middle-of-the-road statement is that found in the introduction to the Geneva Bible of 1560, that the Apocryphal books “proceeding from godly men they were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners.”
That statement refers, not to the whole body of apocryphal literature, but to that generally bound with the 66 unanimously received books of the Bible. But it is still applicable to other ancient writings associated with the Bible tradition. They are useful as historical sources and for “instruction in godly manners.” The implication is that they are not to be used to evidence doctrine.
The Qur'an remains an essential historical source, an enlightening guide to godly manners like other apocryphal works, and an eloquent statement of faith in the Bible and the God of the Bible. It is essentially a Bible commentary. But it is a strangely one-sided commentary. It does not deal with several central Bible doctrines except in a few cryptic passages, all of which are interpreted by Muslims to conflict with the Bible. These central doctrines that are missing in the Qur'an are baptism, the death and resurrection of Christ (peace be upon him), and his atoning intercession on behalf of believers. This prevents the Qur'an from being a full revelation of God's will for humankind.
In regard to baptism, the Qur'an has only this to say:
صِبْغَةَ اللَّهِ وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ صِبْغَةً وَنَحْنُ لَهُ عَابِدُونَ
Q2.138 (Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.
If the Qur'an had been used as intended, as merely a commentary on the Bible, there would have been no problem. But this verse is not enough to establish the practice of baptism, and that is why it is missing in Islam. Ablutions of various kinds exist, on the basis of tradition, but baptism is missing, because Muslims do not follow the Qur'an as it points them to the Bible as the source of faith and practice.
In regard to the ascension of Christ (peace be upon him), the Qur'an only cryptically states:
إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ
وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنْتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ
Q3.55 Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
The Qur'an addresses the local dispute, the issue of the Trinity, in clear terms. But it assumes that the listener knows and believes in such matters as the ascension, and so leaves it largely undiscussed, as in this and a few other passages. The Muslim, who has rejected the Bible that the Qur'an confirms, jumps to the conclusion that Jesus was raised to God without ever dying, simply because the verse in the Qur'an fails to mention it. The Qur'an simply cannot be considered a full revelation from God.
In regard to the death of Christ (peace be upon him), the Qur'an says nothing at all but in retort to Jewish claims to have killed Jesus (peace be upon him).
وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
Q4.157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Instead of reading the context, which merely denied that the boastful Jews at the time of the writing of the Qur'an has killed Jesus (peace be upon him), the Muslim commentator takes the text to mean that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not crucified at all. If the Qur'an were a full revelation of the will of God, such an error could never be made, since the Bible clearly speaks of the Romans having crucified Christ (peace be upon him).
The Qur'an makes such brief reference to the death and resurrection of Christ (peace be upon him), that Islamic interpreters read it to refer to the future, rather than to his crucifixion under the Romans, despite the Gospels' historical evidence rather close to the events. Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying:
وَالسَّلامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدْتُ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا
Q19.33 "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
Obviously, given the Islamic treatment of the text and the doctrine, the Qur'an is insufficient as a full revelation of the will of God. It does not lead the reader to saving truth.
But perhaps the most serious lack in the Qur'an is the lack of focus on the atonement for sin. The Bible presents the ascended Christ (peace be upon him) as doing his high priestly work of intercession and finally the blotting out of sins on behalf of believers. Instead of this sanctifying, inspiring, loving description of Christ (peace be upon him) before the throne of God, the Qur'an constantly refers to the judgement in terms of sensual reward and physical punishment. One example is the following:
يَتَجَرَّعُهُ وَلا يَكَادُ يُسِيغُهُ وَيَأْتِيهِ الْمَوْتُ مِنْ كُلِّ مَكَانٍ وَمَا هُوَ بِمَيِّتٍ وَمِنْ وَرَائِهِ عَذَابٌ غَلِيظٌ
Q14.017 In gulps will he sip it, but never will he be near swallowing it down his throat: death will come to him from every quarter, yet will he not die: and in front of him will be a chastisement unrelenting.
While we would not deny the truth of reward and punishment, the Qur'an appears skewed in its emphasis of these aspects, leaving the good news of forgiveness and blotting out of sin through the intercession of Christ (peace be upon him) entirely unmentioned. But more serious is the fact that this verse in the Qur'an and others seem to support the Hellenistic doctrine of the immortal soul. While this doctrine is common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as many other religions, it is neither Biblical nor true. It is the product of the Greek influence on the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander, and is foreign even to Semitic culture, out of which the Qur'an like the Bible arose.
The first lie of Satan is reported in the Bible. “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
The first and greatest lie of Satan is that the soul continues to live with consciousness after death. This doctrine came into Judaism through Hellenism, and spread into Christianity and Islam. This is the most common false doctrine found in extra-Biblical, apocryphal literature generally, and forms the most central doctrinal reason for not including such books in the Bible canon. If the Qur'an is seen, like much other apocryphal literature, to sustain this non-Biblical, false doctrine, then it cannot be considered a true revelation from God.
We can use the Qur'an as we do the Apocrypha generally. It is a wonderful historical source. It generally fosters godly manners. It contains exquisite expressions of faith in the true God. But it does not emphasize the Gospel message beyond correcting the Trinitarian heresy. And most seriously, it appears to accept the false doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
