The Myths of Islam - The Quran Is The Muslim Counterpart to The Bible

myth got-quran-lg.jpg

In the last of 'Myths of Islam' series, we examine the Quran and its relation to the Bible and Torah. Muslims often compare their own holy book to Christian holy book, while attributing the stark differences to the "corruption" of the New Testament.

One significant difference is that the Bible stands alone. It contains the chronological and historical details necessary to understand the scriptures.

The Quran, on the other hand, stresses the morality and behavior of Muhammad, without ever providing any details about Muhammad's morality and behavior. One must examine other texts to fully understand specific verses. Not to mention the confusing arrangement of each chapter, which is crudely based on the length of the chapter rather than any logical order.

The Myth:

The Qur'an is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians (and the Torah to Jews).

The Truth:

The Qur'an only contains what is presented as the literal words of Allah - as relayed by Muhammad. It can be compared to a manufactured text that includes only the words of Jesus (the so-called "red-letter" verses) extracted from their New Testament historical context and then randomly mixed together (the chapters of the Qur'an are arranged by size and themes are rarely consistent even within each chapter).

By contrast, the Bible contains history and biographical detail. For example, there is nothing in the Qur'an that details Muhammad's life, whereas the Bible contains four books that present all that is known about the biography of Jesus. Another distinction is that when the Bible commands violence - as it does in a handful of Old Testament verses - the intended target is explicitly defined within the passage, leaving little doubt that it is a recounting of history and not an open-ended command for anyone else to do the same.

Despite the rhapsody with which Muslims sing the Qur'an's praises, there is an obvious reason why only a minority have actually bothered to delve deeper than an occasional sporadic perusal through its pages. The random arrangement of verses and near absence of context makes it difficult to understand. For this reason the Qur'an is rarely printed without the incorporation of voluminous commentary (that usually expresses the personal preferences of the translator).

In fact, the Muslim counterpart to the Bible is the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira combined.

The Hadith is a collection of anecdotes and historical snippets of Muhammad's life based on the relayed narrations of those who lived with him. Unfortunately, authenticity varies. But the most dependable compilers are agreed by Muslims scholars to be Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, followed by Abu Dawud. It is on the Hadith that Islamic law (Sharia) is based.

The Sira is the biography of Muhammad's life. Again, there are reliability issues which would appear somewhat bewildering to Christians, given that the gospels were well in place within the first few centuries following the crucifixion - which preceded Muslim history by over 600 years. Still, the most reliable biography of Muhammad was compiled by Ibn Ishaq, who wrote about 150 years after his death. His original work survives only in what was "edited" by a later translator (Ibn Hisham, who admitted that he filtered out several accounts that were of a distasteful nature).

A failure to recognize that the Bible is only comparable to the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira together often leads to faulty accusation and misplaced analysis.

Many thanks to for allowing me to republish these myths in full.

Posted by: DMartyr at 11:38 AM


Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.003 seconds.
13 queries taking 0.0023 seconds, 7 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.