Lately, I have become increasingly reminded about the pervasiveness of Islam. Specifically, I have seen clearly that it is perhaps the largest obstacle that Christians around the world face today when sharing the gospel. Muslims have been extremely hostile to Christians, so hostile in fact, that they see it as their duty to abuse and even kill Christians—or anyone that speaks out against their (false) religion.
I have read about some truly horrible and truly evil things done in the name of Islam, and I have found this deeply troubling, so I have taken it upon myself to understand the context: how is it that Muslims can justify brutally murdering Christians or anyone else that doesn't accept Islam as true? Perhaps there is no better way to understand Muslims than to read their religious text, the Quran. If you are not familiar with the Quran, it was written in the 6th century A.D., that is, 600 years after Jesus Christ, and 350 years after the New Testament canon was officially closed. Muslims perceive the Quran to be directly from God. They don't even believe that it was written by human beings; some have this idea that the Quran just floated down from Heaven, the very words of God himself written down for us, the final revelation of all time. Others believe angels wrote it. Everyone else that isn't Muslim believes it was written by followers of Muhammad.
It's source aside, I have a lot of problems with the Quran. I don't believe it is in any way God's words, and I don't believe there is any reason to take it as anything other than the text of a misguided cult. Having read sufficient portions of it and reading extensively about its history, I am again reminded of the reliability of the Christian Bible. When I refer to the Bible in this post, I am referring to the 66 canonical books, including both Old and New Testaments, as accepted by the Christian Church. I have found these books to be much more reliable than the Quran in particular, and in this post, I'm going to outline my argument as to why.
It can be very overwhelming to read a religious text other than your own—that is, the one you accept as truth—because I have found that as I was picking it apart, I had to carefully articulate how the Bible was different. Great care must be taken when evaluating religious texts, because—particularly in the case of the Quran—they can be very similar to the Bible in a lot of ways, so by refuting some properties of the Quran, you can also get into refuting some properties of the Bible by the same logic, particularly when talking about history. This was initially tricky for me, but after having spent a few days in intellectual struggle, I believe I have a carefully-crafted argument that is sufficient to convince me of the Bible's authority and reliability, and the Quran's relative lack thereof.
I won't be making the argument that the Quran has no value at all—though make no mistake: I absolutely believe that the Quran has no value at all and that belief will probably come out in this post—rather, I will simply be making the case that even if it did have value, the Bible should be preferred in all aspects as being more authoritative and more reliable than the Quran. My hope is that by undermining the Quran, I can more easily invalidate the beliefs of Muslims and thus unequivocally denounce them as wrong and as sinful. The torture and murder of Christians—or anyone for that matter—is certainly a sin for which the people of Islam will unfortunately have to pay.
This is to serve as a validation of the Christian beliefs and as a way to tell Christians, particularly those suffering under Islam, that even though Muslims seek to distort and confuse reality, it is they who are in error, even though they will attempt to make an extremely convincing case that (a) they worship the same God as us and (b) their version of history is more accurate. I will refute both of these claims, starting with the latter.
For me, the most compelling argument against the Quran is its historical timing. It came about far too late in history, and by such an obscure means, to ever be actually useful in the telling of history. Simply put, it has zero historical authority because it was written too far after the events it covers. The Bible is thousands of years older than the Quran, and is therefore much closer in time to the events of which it testifies. We would therefore expect it to have greater authority on those events.
Think of it this way: is it better to hear a piece of news about your grandparents from your aunt who heard from your uncle's wife who heard from your grandparents, or your grandparents themselves? The point is, many believe that history is naturally distorted throughout time, and that the further away you are from an event, the less accurate your perception of it. While this claim is sometimes used to undermine the inerrancy of scripture by saying that it has been distorted through the centuries, this is not well supported; the Jewish people have done a remarkable job at preserving the scriptures in a way that is highly accurate, so we can be confident that the scriptures we have today are very close to the scriptures that were written. That, of course, is an argument for another time.
When we evaluate historical events, we always try to find primary sources from the time of those events. The Bible is such a primary source. It was written so much closer to the events that it is by default considered much more reliable. This cannot be said for the Quran, which tries to speak of things that have been agreed upon for millennium. It is so far removed from the events of which it speaks that it has no authority to add further narrative to those events. They are done, agreed upon by thousands of years of preservation of and scholarship around sources that came from the actual time of the events.
Another reason that the historical authority of the Quran is significantly undermined is the fact that it is attributed to a single prophet. The Bible is attributed to hundreds of authors over thousands of years, so the fact that it is still internally consistent despite that is a miracle only God can perform. However, the Quran is said to have been spoken by a single person, at a single time in history. And the prophesies spoken don't particularly agree with any of the previous ones spoken by the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what reason have we to trust a single person that goes contrary to the majority opinion, and so much later in history, at that? The Quran doesn't read like a prophesy anyway; it reads more like a rule book used to control followers and, notably, as we will see in a moment, abuse women.
The fact that the Quran has no historical authority is significant; we only assign theological and moral authority to the Bible because we see that it corresponds with reality and is historically reliable. Since we do not have the basis for the historical reliability of the Quran, we are unable to find a basis for theological and moral authority either. One cannot have an understanding of morality or the God who determines such morality, if one does not have an accurate understanding of human history and God's role in that history. We can only get such an accurate understanding from texts that were around while that history was in the making. The Quran is no such text. It came about so far after Jesus' death and resurrection as to be meaningless in describing events from that time or earlier, yet that is exactly what the Quran does. It re-tells with a slightly different flavor the story of the Bible. But if the Bible is so much closer to the actual events, why not just use that instead? We will get a far more accurate picture. It is like looking through a microscope instead of a magnifying glass.
We ought to be responsible in how we learn about history, and eyewitness accounts are always far more reliable than second-hand accounts. The New Testament is such an eyewitness account.
Even if we could somehow be convinced of the authority of the Quran despite its late arrival, we would still have to overcome the problem of historical accuracy. Not only is the Quran far-removed from the history of which it writes, it also tells history in a sloppy way that is inaccurate and known to be false.
The historical accuracy of the Bible has been confirmed time and time again. Skeptics typically make the claim that because we have no additional, outside proof of an event in the Bible, it did not happen and was just made up. However, while I concede that there are things in the Bible for which secular scholars have found no archeological or historical evidence, the fact is that we have found a lot of things in Scripture that are supported by archeology, so we have no reason to not trust the rest of it for which we have yet to find outside evidence. The fact is, the Bible has proven that it is telling the truth in matters that we have found an outside way to measure that truth, so we can trust it even in the matters that we have yet to find an outside measure.
Unfortunately for Islam, the Quran is not so robust. It makes many historical claims contrary to the Bible which even secular scholars refute. Perhaps the most notable claim is that Jesus never actually died, but was just taken up into Heaven as a noble and good prophet. This claim is notable because there is literally no dispute among Christians and non-Christians alike that there was a man named Jesus, which the Bible accurately describes, and that this man was crucified on a cross and buried in a tomb. Even if you reject the deity of Jesus, the fact that he existed, died on a cross, and was buried cannot be denied; it is historical fact. And yet, the Quran attempts to rewrite this history for some reason. I cannot immediately tell what purpose this serves, because the rejection of the deity of Christ is a totally separate argument—one that is also made by the Quran. The only thing I can think of is that this claim is necessary to further separate Muslims from the Christians, and antagonize Christians even more.
Additionally, the Quran omits inconvenient history entirely. It ignores thousands of years of prophesy of a Messiah that will save humanity, and instead emphasizes a works-based faith, which not even the Old Testament emphasizes. It states instead that if you do good works, then you can earn favor with God. This was never the main idea of the God of Abraham. The tricky part about the prophets is that Muslims practically worship some of them, such as "Adam" (in quotes because we do not really see him as a prophet, though they do), Moses, and Abraham, but then reject all of the prophets that followed. On what basis does the Quran get to pick and choose?
Many people—Christians included—seem to be under the impression that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. After all, both claim to worship the God of Abraham, and thus belong to a class of religions call "Abrahamic." However, I want to make it crystal clear that this is simply and absolutely false. Having read enough of the Quran to make a judgement on this matter, I can without doubt say that Muslims are misguided in their worship of God because they do not know who God truly is. In light of the historical arguments made above, we have no reason to trust their account of God over the account of God that has existed for thousands of years prior. So when we see a conflict in the nature of God between the Bible and the Quran, we should always prefer the God of the Bible, because it is older and thus closer to the time of the events of which it speaks. In this section, I want to simply outline a few of those disagreements which I deem to be most prominent.
The god in the Quran is not at all similar in nature to the God of the Bible in a few important ways:
I will provide only one example of the last point, but I assure you there are many others. Islam is known by the West for its harsh treatment of women, and when people hear that Christians worship the same God as Muslims, they tend to associate this poor treatment as instruction from God, as though God is the bigot, the sexist one that instructs men to oppress women. This causes a lot of problems for Christians, who must now defend against such claims because they are not true. However, the Quran would indeed have us believe that God supports the active and violent suppression of women:
The good women are obedient, guarding what Allah would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, then strike them. But if they obey you, seek no way against them. Allah is Sublime, Great.
— Quran 4:34b (an-Nisa' translated "Women")
The Quran clearly states that if women are not obedient, they should be admonished, "abandoned in their beds" (which in some contexts, Muslims take to mean "locked in their bedrooms for long periods of time without food or water"), and beaten. Not only this, but if a man even fears or suspects his wife has been disloyal, he is given justification for abusing his wife. He doesn't even have to have proof. This means that there is room in the Quran for much more violence against women, because a man only has to claim that he fears disloyalty, whether or not that is the actual reason and whether or not there is any evidence to support such supposed fears.
The god who instructs gives instructions such as these cannot possibly be the same God that wrote through the apostle Paul 600 years earlier:
Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
— Colossians 3:19
The Bible does not give any other qualifications to Paul's statement in Colossians 3:19. It doesn't say "love your wives unless they are disloyal or disobedient, then you may punish them." It simply says "do not be harsh with them." The natural implication of this is that we as Christian men should never, under any circumstances, be harsh with our wives. In Ephesians 5:33, Paul says "let each one of you love his wife as himself." As selfish human beings, we know how much we love ourselves, and Paul knows this too. He is emphasizing here that we should love our wives in the same way that we are often selfish. Just as we protect and cherish our own bodies and do everything we can for our own personal flourishing, so we are called to do with our wives. Read Ephesians 5:25-33 for more clarity on how men are called to love their wives.
It simply does not track that God would change his mind about women all of the sudden, so late in history. The Bible makes it very clear, from Genesis, the very first book of the Bible, that women are equal in value to men. For thousands of years, these were God's official words, undisputed. And then Muhammad comes along and and receives a revelation that directly contradicts this 600 years after Christ died, was resurrected, and ascended to Heaven? It is simply absurd, not even accounting for the numerous places in the Bible where God makes it clear that Jesus would be his final divine revelation to humanity, invalidating all others that claim to come after him.
Much could be said about the first points as well, but these are more points of theology and less of morality. While equally significant, I don't see any reason to beat this subject to death. I have already discussed some aspects of these points in the previous sections, and in light of the historical case against the Quran, I don't see a need to further diminish its reputation. The Bible is extremely cohesive in the theological case it puts forward, and that should be sufficient for the curious reader. I would rather you read the Bible itself than any commentary I have on it.
If I may make a few more quotations from the Quran, let the first be 10:36-37:
Most of them follow nothing but assumptions; and assumptions avail nothing against the truth. Allah is fully aware of what they do.
This Quran could not have been produced by anyone other than Allah. In fact, it is a confirmation of what preceded it, and an elaboration of the Book. There is no doubt about it—it is from the Lord of the Universe.
I would only add to this that if your holy text cannot speak for itself in its qualities, but must directly state that any contrary belief is simply based on "assumptions" and not grounded in any reason or reality, that should be a sure sign that something is wrong. The Bible makes many similar claims about the truthfulness of God's word, but it need not interject statements such as this. Instead, it follows reason and logic. It appeals to reality. It doesn't simply say "anyone who disagrees follows nothing but assumptions." This is an oversimplification at best. At best, the Quran is full of oversimplifications that do not accurately represent contrary beliefs.
In 4:66, we see this:
Certainly, to Allah belongs everyone in the heavens and everyone on earth. Those who invoke other than Allah do not follow partners; they follow only assumptions, and they only guess.
This is a mighty claim that I am doubtful has much support. Followers of Jesus Christ do not make assumptions; we have plenty of evidence that allows us to to put our faith in Him. This verse, in context with the rest of the Quran, no doubt points a finger right at Christians as "invoking other than Allah" See verse 68, two verses down:
And they said, “Allah has taken a son.” Be He glorified. He is the Self-Sufficient. His is everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Do you have any proof for this? Or are you saying about Allah what you do not know?
The Quran reads mostly like fighting words aimed specifically at the Bible. As such, it makes no legitimate claims about reality, and since it came long after the Biblical canon was closed, and contradicts it so blatantly, we have little reason to accept it as truth. In fact, one could argue that we have absolutely no reason to accept it as anything worth reading at all, if not for the fact that so many people hold to it and we want to understand those people in order that we might reach them with the Gospel. Indeed, that is why I have read large portions of it.
The Quran is not Scripture. It was not breathed out by God like scripture. It is no more than the rant of a few misguided souls, which have led so many astray over the centuries in an unfortunate tragedy that can only be described as the evil one trying to lead astray as many as he can.
There is much, much more I could say about Quran. The case against it is overwhelming. There is substantial evidence on which I have pages and pages of notes. Unfortunately I do not have the time to share it all here. I hope that the main points of this post stick and are found to have some validity. I welcome any and all questions, comments, and concerns. I welcome all praises and critiques of this post. Please submit them via my Contact Form. If there is an argument that could be strengthened, do let me know. If there is an argument you want to refute, do let me know. I realize that I have only just scratched the surface of these issues, and I know I haven't filled in all of the nuances and details.