wpe19.gif (1320 bytes)  Home                                                                                                                                             Contents   wpeB.gif (1391 bytes) 

wpe1.jpg (4587 bytes)  Islam


To find Jesus in an electronic Koran, use either Isa or Messiah for search words.

The religion of Islam was invented roughly two thousand years after Judaism, and six hundred years after Christianity, by an Arab named Muhammad. That should be a red flag to anyone familiar with the Bible because salvation is not of the Arabs: it's of the Jews.

John 4:22 . .You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

The New Testament's Jesus narrowed it down even more. Salvation is not only of the Jews, but it is specifically through just one Jewish man: Jesus Christ; not Muhammad.

John 14:6 . .Jesus answered; I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

No Bible student should ever be fooled into thinking Islam is similar to, or close to, their own beliefs because it's not. Unlike the New Testament, Islam's holy book, the Koran, has no roots in Old Testament Judaism whatsoever. Islam claims a tie to Abraham through Hagar's son Ishmael. However, Moses, credited with writing the book of Genesis almost 2,010 years prior to the Koran, said that Ishmael was not the son through whom God would reveal Himself to the world; but through Isaac; the progenitor of the Jews.

Gen 17:18-2 . .And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live by Your favor!” God said, “Nevertheless, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will maintain My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring to come. As for Ishmael, I have heeded you. I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation. But My covenant I will maintain with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year."

Ex 4:22 . .This is what Yhvh says: Israel is my firstborn son

Deut 4:5-8 . .See, I (Moses) have imparted to you laws and rules, as the Lord my God has commanded me, for you to abide by in the land that you are about to enter and occupy. Observe them faithfully, for that will be proof of your wisdom and discernment to other peoples, who on hearing of all these laws will say, “Surely, that great nation is a wise and discerning people.” For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand as is the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him? Or what great nation has laws and rules as perfect as all this Teaching that I set before you this day?

Ps 76:2-3 . .God has made Himself known in Judah, His name is great in Israel; Salem became His abode; Zion, His den.

Ps 78:7 . .He made known His ways to Moses, His deeds to the children of Israel.

Ps 147:19-20 . .He issued His commands to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing. Hallelujah.

Amos 3:1-2 . .O children of Israel . . You only have I known of all the families of the earth

Rom 3:1-2 . .What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Serious Differences                    

The Bible declares that Jesus died by crucifixion.

John 19:31-35 . .Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. (NIV)

Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it is not said exactly how high) the spear point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text does not say which side was stabbed, but from John's description, and judging from the intent of the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death, the heart side was very likely the side they cut into and the spear point entered just under his rib cage.

The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium. This membrane contains a serous matter or liquor resembling water, which prevents the surface of the heart from becoming dry by its continual motion. It was very likely this which was pierced and from which the *water* flowed. The point of the spear also seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the heart, and the blood, yet warm, rushed forth, either mingled with or followed by the liquor of the pericardium, so as to appear to John to be blood and water flowing together. Though not medically accurate in our day, John's calling the serous fluid *water was accurate enough in his own day.

The New Testament's Jesus was quite deceased; and the Romans themselves certified his demise.

Mark 15:43-45 . .Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

Even if Jesus had somehow managed to survive the crucifixion, he would certainly have died from suffocation later during the preparation of his body for burial. They first cocooned him with a paste made from a mixture of myrrh and aloes; and not just a thin film of it, but seventy-five pounds of it. Then put a towel over his face and secured it by wrapping his head with strips of cloth. Then they wound his entire body with the same materials; and then wrapped him all up like a burrito in a large linen sheet.

Muhammad denies Jesus died on the cross.

The Women [4.157] . .And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

The Bible declares that Jesus' death was a vicarious, proxy judgment upon the sins of the world

1John 2:2 . .He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1Cor 15:1-8 . .Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I transmitted to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

The Bible's Jesus pre existed in another form before entering the world scene as a human being.

Mic 5:1 ...And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clans of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me— one whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.

John 1:1-14 ...In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Col 1:16-17 ...For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Islam's Jesus is an ordinary human being and nothing more.

.The Family of Imran [3.59] ...Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

.The Dinner Table [5.75] ...The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

.The Immunity [9.30] ...And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!


Acts 8:26-35 …Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road— the desert road —that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

. . Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

. . The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth." The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

According to both the prophet Isaiah and the apostle Philip, Messiah was executed. Yet Muhammad, who came along no less than five hundred years after the fact, says he wasn't. Many witnesses watched Jesus die, including his mother. Why should we believe the writings of just one solo man, who was far removed from the action, when we have the benefit of so many others who lived in Jesus' day and many of which actually met the man?

Muhammad is just one lone wolf, much like Mormonism's Joseph Smith, who proclaimed his own message to be the last revealed Book and himself to be the last of the genuine prophets, consummating and superseding the earlier ones including both Moses and the New Testament's Jesus. Yet Muhammad, like Joseph Smith, produced no corroborating testimonies to certify his alleged revelations.

It should be very obvious to any unbiased observer that the Islamic movement is really worthy of little more trust than Mormonism. Muslims are in a very high risk religion because millions of them are banking their entire eternal future upon the word of just one human being who claimed, without proof or witnesses, that he was privately visited by the angel Gabriel and appointed by him to the office of a prophet for God. Both Jesus, and Moses, were publicly certified messengers of God by amazing feats and miracles done in the presence of many eyewitnesses; and done, not just in one day, but over a period of years; and Jesus himself is corroborated, and substantiated, by the Old Testament's writers— something Muhammad could never claim.

Luke 24:27 . .And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-46 . .And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And said unto them; Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day

The Koran                      

Accepted by Muslims as the miraculous utterance of the Almighty, the Koran is regarded as above criticism and a work not to be tested and proved; but itself the standard of merit. The tone of the book is authoritative and dogmatic throughout; the second chapter opens, "This is the book in which there is no doubt . ."

Muslims are mandated to accept the Koran without question. The Koran does not invite investigation, but demands adherents to accept it ex cathedra. It should not, then, surprise us when Muslims flatfootedly reject Bible passages and proofs for no other reason than that the Koran's own passages don't agree. In their mind, the Koran is the standard of truth, not the Bible; therefore the Bible is presumed eo ipso wrong from the get-go.

If only everyone would follow the example of the Berean Jews who didn't buy into the Gospel until they first researched the Old Testament to make sure Paul's teachings were substantiated by the Scriptures.

Acts 17:10-12 . .As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Substantiating the New Testament with the Old is a very valuable skill; one that's been honed to perfection by an organization called Jews For Jesus. The website's URL is below.


Since Muhammad didn't come along until practically 500 years after the New Testament, and especially because he was an Arab and not a Jew, I believe it is proper to judge the reliability of his revelations in respect to the Bible's authority, not the other way around.

Very early in Christianity's history, even while Jesus' apostles were still alive, teachers like Muhammad and Joseph Smith were already countering the Gospel with supposed new revelations of their own.

Gal 1:6-12 . .I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

. . But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to accomodate men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man invented. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Something that has always fascinated me about the Bible is the number of authors who participated in the compilation of its 66 books over a period of about 1400 years. It is much easier for me to trust its multiplicity of authorship rather than the solo enterprise of just one lone self-proclaimed revelator. If additional revelators, from different eras, had taken part in compiling the Koran over a very long historical period of time, instead of just one individual in his own time, then it would have been possible to make comparisons and decide if Muhammad was a fake or what. But since he is the Koran's sole source, that cannot be done and I think any reasonable person would have to agree it would be prudent to regard Muhammad's "revelations" with a great deal of suspicion.

Actually, Muhammad himself didn't write the Koran. Whenever Muhammad told of his revelations, secretaries wrote them down or committed them to memory.

[Right off the bat the Koran's supposed "divine verbatim authorship" is in question; relying upon not only Muhammad's memory, but also upon the memories of his secretaries. The people whose hands penned the Koran didn't get any information directly from Allah; no, they actually got it second-hand from Muhammad.]

The revelations were accumulated and compiled by his followers a few years after his death in 632 AD. An authorized version was produced in the early 650's by a group of Arabic scholars under Uthman ibn Affan. They attempted to destroy all other versions, but some survived and are now accepted.

Fortunately, and to the New Testament's advantage, there are four versions of Jesus compiled by four different authors who we can safely assume all lived in his day and either heard and saw Jesus' life for themselves, or were acquainted with people who did. By comparing the four, and averaging out their details, we can obtain a reasonably trustworthy account of the man's life and times.

The Bible                            

The four Gospels are very unique documents. For one thing; they are not carbon copies of each other. In no area are they more conflicting than the details of the crucifixion and resurrection. Because of that, Muslims feel they have a valid argument against the truthfulness of the Gospel records. To understand why, it is first necessary to understand Islam's concept of "revelation."

Muslims allege the original Koran was information collected verbatim from Allah; a sort of divine dictation. Put in computer-speak, Allah was the internet server and Muhammad was a home computer that downloaded files directly from the mainframe of God; so that Muhammad himself took no part at all in any of the actual journalism; neither as an investigator, nor as a witness, nor as an audience, nor as an editor, nor as an author. Upon that premise, the premise that their entire holy book was authored by Allah rather than by human beings, Muslims are confident that it is impossible for the Koran to contain errors, contradictions, or discrepancies.

That's all well and good. However, it is a gross error to force that kind of a premise upon the Bible. It is absolutely not one massive folder containing 100% downloaded words from the mouth of God. On the contrary, although the Bible does contain revelation, much of the Bible's content is the product of inspired journalism rather than dictation. Even Divine quotes are not always verbatim; but can often be recognized as put into the authors' own words, and sometimes even paraphrased.

As an example of paraphrasing, compare quotes in Gen 18:11-13 where Yhvh's response does not quote Sarah verbatim: "And Sarah laughed to herself, saying; Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment with my husband so old?" Then Yhvh said to Abraham; "Why did Sarah laugh, saying; Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?"

Incidentally, God restored Abraham and Sarah's reproductive vitality. Though they looked very old at the time of Isaac's conception, they actually felt quite virile, if you know what I mean; and Abraham continued to sire children with another wife after Sarah died a number of years later.

Heb 11:11-12 . .Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.


Bible writers wrote what they wrote either because they were told to, or because they felt inclined to. The compulsion they felt can be explained as "inspiration." Biblical inspiration is usually defined as Divine influence. However, it was very possible for a Bible author to be compelled by Divine influence and at the same time not even be aware of it. The writer's intention may have been quite innocent in that he just felt it was important at the time to put certain things down in writing before the information became irretrievably lost to future generations; e.g. Joshua, Kings, and Chronicles.

Many of the Old Testament's books are completely anonymous; including the most important one of all: Genesis. (Whoever wrote Genesis couldn't possibly have been an eyewitness to everything from the Creation and the Flood, to the life and times of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.) Other anonymous books include Joshua, Judges, Job, Ruth, Esther, 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, and forty nine of the Psalms.

I believe they are like that because the people who authored them, didn't set out with the intention of making a name for themselves. They just wanted to put what they knew into writing and hand it down to the next generation; same as I'm doing for my son. Am I writing a Bible for my son? No, in no way. I'm just doing my best to insure that the Bible knowledge and training I picked up during my time on earth is not lost to my own future generations. I'm writing for my son; and for my grandchildren. Abraham has been my role model in this venture.

Gen 18:19 . .For I know Abraham; that he will direct his children, and his household after him, to keep the way of Yhvh

Human Error                         

The Gospels in particular should never be thought of as purely Divine dictations. They are the accumulated depositions and recollections of eye witnesses and others familiar with the events-- for the most part, ordinary people who actually lived in those days and either knew about, or actually saw and heard the stuff about which we are so fascinated.

In point of fact, one of the Gospels doesn't really appear to be a gospel at all. Luke's version was a letter sent, not to the world nor to a church, but to a friend of his named Theophilus; probably a Roman official, with whom Luke was familiar and held in high regard (Luke 1:1-4).

According to Luke, "many" in his time had already independently undertaken the task of compiling reports themselves even before he did. It's a pity those other versions never made it into the Bible. But no matter. If people won't believe four gospels, they probably wouldn't be persuaded by a hundred either.

Prosecutors often become suspicious when witnesses all tell the very same story because it's highly unusual for people to see, tell, or remember things exactly alike. A case in point, from the June 2003 issue of Scientific American, was a recent experiment conducted at Iowa State University, wherein 253 participants who watched a crime staged on video, were afterwards asked to finger a suspect from a 6-man line-up. Unknown to them, the true culprit wasn't among the 6 men in the line-up; so that every choice was an innocent man. When told; "Good, you identified the suspect." the participants became ever more confident in their selection and began to overstate their recollection of details, including the criminal's facial features.

If the four Gospels were too identical, we would have good reason to doubt their authenticity because the authors could have easily put their little heads together and come up with a perfect story if their intention was to perpetrate a hoax. But the very fact that they didn't seek to collaborate with each other is obviously significant.

Of all the witnesses and chroniclers that were involved in creating the Gospel records, the star contributor among them all has to be Jesus himself. Without Jesus' input, much of his unwitnessed dialogue wouldn't be in the New Testament; e.g. Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, his prayer in John 17, and the interviews with Pilate and the high priests.

But, you might ask, when did he contribute? Well, that is the question isn't it? I really don't know the specifics. He was with the apostles forty days after his resurrection. And we know that Paul and John were in contact with him later by visions.

Sifting through all the testimony, and throwing out stuff that's inconsistent and contradictory, it's possible to construct a pretty reasonable scenario and list several salient items upon which all the witnesses agree occurred during crucifixion week.

1 . . . A man named Jesus of Nazareth came to Jerusalem
2 . . . He ate a Pesach; his last supper
3 . . . He was betrayed by an apostle named Judas
4 . . . He was arrested at night by the Jewish religious leaders.
5 . . . Peter disowned him three times.
6 . . . Jesus stood trial before a Roman governor named Pilate
7 . . . He was condemned unjustly
8 . . . He was beaten
9 . . . He was crucified
10 . . Friends were there to see it
11 . . He died during crucifixion
12 . . He was interred, but not underground
13 . . He revived on the third day
14 . . Women came to the empty tomb early on the first day of the week
15 . . Jesus showed friends he was alive and well.

Those facts are well substantiated because all four Gospel writers included them in their accounts. The exact details surrounding those facts are somewhat contradictory in many respects, and some are overstated while others are a bit sketchy; but that's to be expected. The Gospels were not a running account; but were actually written some time after the fact. Time passed, and people sometimes forget or get their facts mixed up. Plus, some of the witnesses were very likely under stress at the time; which would quite naturally effect their perception of the things they saw and heard. Crucifixion week was not a good time for Messiah's followers. A lot was going on and those were very tense days for messianic Jews.

Greek versus Aramaic                    

Muslims sometimes try to discredit the New Testament with a very dumb argument like: Jesus didn't speak Greek. However, as long as the New Testament authors knew and understood both Aramaic and Greek, there should be no problem with their writings. A rose in any language is still the same flower whether it's in Greek or Spanish or Chinese so don't let them get away with a silly objection like that. Changing the wording in the New Testament is tantamount to tampering with State's evidence. Only a person without honor would do such a thing in order to prove their point.

A Muslim with whom I once dialogued alleged that the women who came to the tomb brought oil with them so they could treat Jesus' wounds because he was still alive after his crucifixion. The proof texts offered in defense of the "oil" theory were Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1.

Mark 16:1 . .When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Luke 24:1 . .On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

The Greek word translated "spices" in those passages is arwma, which just means: aroma. That word is commonly used in the New Testament for perfumes, never for oil.

A famous example of the use of arwma is Matthew 26:6-13

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. Why this waste? they asked. This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor. Aware of this, Jesus said to them, Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.

The word for perfume in that passage is the very same word for spices in Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1: arwma. According to Mark, it was spikenard. Certainly no one would suggest spikenard was poured on Jesus' head for medicinal purposes. It was in fact said to be preparatory to his burial. Apparently Mary Magdalene was intent upon the very same courtesy when she came to the tomb that morning with some arwma of her own.

The Greek word for oil is elaion, which was commonly used in medicinal recipes in Jesus' day. It was elaion that the good Samaritan used to treat the wounds of the victim of robbers in Luke 10:33-34.

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.

The Muslim with whom I spoke would not budge but insisted that the Aramaic word for oil can mean perfume too. Well; that's all well and good; but the authors of Mark and Luke wrote in Greek, not Aramaic. If the women brought oil, Mark and Luke would have said it was elaion instead of arwma so people who understand Greek wouldn't get the wrong idea.

If Christians allow the Devil's agents to make word changes in the New Testament documents, they will be granting The Lord's enemies license to create another Bible and make it say whatever they want to suit their own purposes. Keep that up long enough and eventually the real Bible will have no teeth left at all.

Proof and Evidence      

Muslims sometimes try to put their Judeo-Christian opponents on the defensive by challenging them to "prove" the Bible's information is true and accurate. But that ploy is a double edged sword. Although both the Koran and the Bible contain historical information and prophetic instances that can easily be verified by secular history; many religious doctrines in both the Koran and the Bible have to be taken on faith because there is just no way to "prove" things of a spiritual nature. For example; on the subject of angels; here's a quote from the Koran.

.The Cow [2.30] . . And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: Surely I know what you do not know.

That conversation between "your Lord" and the angels is impossible to verify. Muslims have to take it on faith. Here's a corresponding example from the Bible.

Heb 1:5-6 . .For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Those Biblical conversations between God and the Son, and God and the angels, cannot be verified either.

The Koran's Allah does not have a son.

.The Women [4.171] . . O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

The Bible's Jesus is stated to be the Son Of God.

Luke 22:66-70 . . They all asked; Are you then the Son of God? He replied; You are correct in saying I am.

So which can be proven correct about God having a son-- the Bible or the Koran? In reality, neither is provable.

Here's a Koran excerpt regarding the origin of Man.

.The Women [4.1] . . O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.

And a corresponding Bible passage.

Gen 1:27 . .And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

It is impossible to prove that a Supreme Being created Man; whether it be Judaism's 'Elohiym or Islam's Allah. People just have to take that on faith. So although Muslims may strut and puff and claim that the Koran can be proved, they are not being quite realistic about it. Many of Muhammad's utterances have to be taken on faith just as many of the words of the Bible's authors have to be taken on faith.

Muslims may attempt to discredit the Bible so that people appear forced to accept the Koran by default. But even if the Bible were successfully proven utterly false, Islam's holy book would not eo ipso be true by default. It would still remain just as much suspect as the holy books of any other religion whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Baha'i, Unification, Shintoism, or Zoroastrianism.

Ethnic Pride                         

Islam is deeply rooted in Arab life. Ever since Ishmael, the Arabs and the Jews have been mortal enemies; and that animosity was seen in all its horrid splendor during the Gulf War when Iraq launched several unprovoked SCUD missile attacks against Israel. Because of the ancient animosity, it is very humiliating, and just about impossible, for an Arab to warm up to a Hebrew savior. Jesus is a Jew. Muhammad is an Arab. Which would you pick if you were an Arab? Well, the choice is obvious isn't it? Try to put yourself in their place. Many Arabs, especially of the Palestinian variety, would rather suffer in Hell than give in to a Jew; so you can expect a very stubborn resistance to the Bible from Muslim Arabs.

[The above paragraph was penned prior to Sept 11, 2001. Since then, Arab hatred for Jews has contaminated the entire planet and put everyone in fear of Islamic reprisals against supporters of Israel.]

Related References                 

The Kingdom Of The Cults
by Walter Martin
ISBN 1-55661-264-8


101 Bible Contradictions

Informative Web Sites               

Afghanistan's Women
Answering Islam
Arabic Bible Outreach
Islam Explained
Islam's Version Of Paradise
An Online Koran Concordance


Bumblbee.wmf (4108 bytes) TOP

Musicnot.wmf (1656 bytes)   Beauty For Ashes