Summary: I recently received a challenge from a Muslim friend to read the Qur’an from the beginning and to stop when I find the first “contradiction” between it and the Bible. This is my answer to my friend.
I recently received a challenge from a Muslim friend to read the Qur’an from the beginning and to stop when I find the first “contradiction” between it and the Bible. His reasoning for this seemed good for this challenge: If you begin from the beginning of the Qur’an, than whenever I come to a place where a contradiction exists, then I would have read the prior context, and would see that there is not a contradiction because I will see that I am taking a passage out of its context.
My response to this challenge may disappoint my Muslim friend:
The Qur’an contradicts the Bible from the very first word.
Why do I say this? I say this because we are told in the Bible that it is the all-sufficient word of God. It is all that I need to know Him and to receive salvation. Consider the following verses:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 – In this passage, Paul says that the scriptures at His time were sufficient to make man “perfect, thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.” If the Bible God gave us before the time of Muhammad was enough to equip us for every good work, what need is there for new revelation?
Hebrews 1:1-2 – The Hebrews writer tells us that God, in the last days, speaks to us through His Son. Jesus said that His Apostles would be His representatives and give His words by the Holy Spirit. Any claims of giving new revelation after their deaths would contradict this scripture, especially when the person does not claim to be a representative of Jesus Christ (which was not a claim of Muhammad).
Speaking to the Apostles in John 16:13-15, Jesus tells them that the Holy Spirit will lead the Apostles into all truth. If the Spirit led them into ALL truth, there is not a need for new revelation to give more truth.
In Jude 1:3, Jude says that the faith was “once for all” given to the saints. The faith that God wants us to have was fully given to His people in the first century. Any future claims of giving beliefs that God wants us to have contradicts this passage.
The Apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:3 that God in His power has given us “all things pertaining to life and godliness.” If God through the Apostles of Christ gave us all that we need to live and be godly, what need is there for new revelation.
These passages make it clear that everything we need to be right with God was given to us by the Apostles and prophets of Jesus in the first century. There was not a need for someone to come later and to give new revelation from God, whether it contradicted the Bible or not. The first time Muhammad said he was speaking for Allah, he was contradicting the Bible.
My Muslim friend would probably respond by saying, “new revelation was needed because the doctrines of the Bible were corrupted by the time of Muhammad.” This response begs the question because it assumes that Muhammad was right in making such a claim as a “prophet of God.” This claim itself contradicts the Bible and cannot be right! Speaking to Christians in the first century, the Apostle Peter said:
“22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because “All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:22-25)
Peter in this passage says that the word of God that leads us as Christians to be saved in Jesus Christ is incorruptible and will not pass away. He then quotes the prophet Isaiah, who said that the word of God would not pass away. Both the Old and New Testaments make this claim, so if the Muslim claims the Bible was corrupted, they can only respond in one of two ways:
They can say that these are two of the passages which Allah allowed to be corrupted, which is not a logical response. It begs the question. (this must be proven, not assumed)
They can say that these passages are incorrect, thus saying that Allah lied when He spoke them.