On a recent outing in London
Paul Williams, who was recently outed himself (in more ways than one, see here
and here),
discovered something that outs Islamic apologists like Bassam
Zawadi, not to mention many others.
According to PW,
world-renowned Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem confirmed for him in a phone
conversation one of the two claims that Christians often make regarding the Bible.
In the view of Professor Haleem, the Qur’an does NOT teach that the Bible was
corrupted. Instead, it teaches that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Prof.
Haleem’s statements in this connection, as PW says, “put Muslim apologist
Bassam Zawadi (who has argued many times for the view that the Quran teaches
textual corruption) in the wrong.” This, as PW also says, serves to “vindicate
the oft-stated views of Sam Shamoun and David Wood.”
To PW’s relief, Professor
Haleem went on to say that the Injeel is not the same as the four canonical
gospels or the New Testament, and that the former was “largely lost to history”
while the latter contains only “a few shreds of Jesus’ authentic teaching.’” For
whatever reason, and I can think of one that is more than plausible but best
left unspoken, PW still hates the Bible but wants to leave room for the Qur’an
to still be true in its theological and historical pronouncements, even though he
finds the ethical and religious injunctions of the Qur’an impossibly hard to
follow (contrary to its own empty-boast about being light and easy, Q. 2:185ff,
7:157, et. al).
As is often the case, PW’s
relief on this score proves to be very temporary. For if we follow out this
reasoning, it would have to mean that the Quran mentions two different books:
the Bible (i.e. the canonical Gospels, the New Testament) and the Injeel (i.e.
the original message given to Jesus). Furthermore, it would also mean: 1) when
the Qur’an speaks of Christians misinterpreting the Bible at the time of
Muhammad, it is not talking about the Injeel, for the Injeel was “largely lost
to history”; and 2) when the Qur’an speaks of the Injeel being largely lost to
history, it is not talking about the Bible that Christians had in their
possession at the time of Muhammad, because they certainly must have had the
Bible in their possession in order to (allegedly) misinterpret it.
The problem with saying that
the Bible and the Injeel are two different books – one of which existed at the
time of Jesus but was lost before Muhammad’s time, the other of which existed
at the time of Muhammad but was being misinterpreted – is that the Qur’an does
not mention these two different books. Anywhere. This idea is totally foreign
to the Qur’an. It nowhere says that Christians have a book that is different
than what was given to Jesus, and it nowhere says that the book given to Jesus
is different than the book in the possession of Christians.
Worse than the above, not
only does the Qur’an not make such a distinction, it actually contradicts it.
To give just one example, the Qur’an says that Christians can find Muhammad in
the (Torah and the) Injeel.
Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered
Prophet, whom THEY FIND mentioned in their own (scriptures), - in the law and the Gospel [i.e. Injeel]; - for he
commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as
lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and
impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are
upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow
the light which is sent down with him, - it is they who will prosper. (Q. 7:157, Yusuf Ali)
If Christians did not have
the Injeel at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an is wrong when it claims
that they could find Muhammad in it. And if Christians (allegedly) could find
Muhammad in the Injeel, then that means Christians must have had it at the time
of Muhammad. And of course, since we have today what the Christians had at the
time of Muhammad, then that means that Christians today have the Injeel.
This puts Muslims in quite a
bind. Instead of crying down everything they don’t like in the Bible as a
corruption of the original message sent down by God in the first century, they
will now have to do the tough job of disproving that the Bible, i.e. the
Injeel, teaches things like the following:
Jesus is God
Jesus became a human being
Jesus died, was buried and
rose again for the salvation of sinners
Among other things.
There can be no question of
corruption from a Qur’anic standpoint, and thus no cherry-picking of verses to
avoid the obvious. The only option that is open to Muslims in light of what
Professor Haleem admitted, i.e. the Qur’an does not teach that the Bible has
been corrupted, and that the Qur’an demonstrates, i.e. the Bible is the Injeel,
is the hard job of honest exegesis.
This is why Professor Haleem's devastating
admission coupled with an artificial and false distinction could only provide temporary relief for those who want to give
credence to the Qur’an, even those who have left Islam behind. PW should really just come all the way out and make a
clean break with Islam, leaving behind not only any hope of being able to live
up to the Qur'an's impossible requirements, but also any notion that it is true in its theological and historical
teachings.
The good news for those who have ears to hear it, is that according to the uncorrupted Injeel, the
true God does not first require us to live up to His dictates before He will
love us; rather, we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). And God demonstrated
his own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).
That is why Jesus could say in the Gospel that His yoke is easy and His burden
is light (Matthew 11:30). The love of God taught in the Bible is a saving and transforming love; the love of
Allah taught in the Qur’an produces despair for those who are honest with the
fact that they do not measure up to what Allah requires in order to be loved by him. PW has already learned the latter. Let's pray that he (and all Muslims) also comes to learn the former.
