In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Tough Questions and Easy Answers
The Prophet's Married Life
Q. A Christian missionary Dr. Anis Shorrosh says that the prophet's wives were virtually captives in the prophet's houses. This he says because they were not to be spoken to except from behind a curtain, and because they could not remarry after Muhammad's death (see Dr. Anis Shorrosh, Islam Revealed. US: Thomas Nelson, 1988. p. 64).
A. Dr. Shorrosh is mistaken. First, the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were allowed to go out for their needs as specifically stated in the authentic hadiths although it is true that they were also directed to stay at home except when such need arose.
Second, they were allowed to speak to other women face to face. The curtain applied only in speaking to men. This was not to keep the wives of the prophet captive but, as the Quraan specifically said, so as to keep purity in their hearts and the hearts of the men who spoke to them. They were not captives but teachers. Men had to continually come to learn from them about the prophet's example. The curtain rule was only to make sure that the wrong type of attraction did not develop between teacher and student.
Third, the fact that the wives of the prophet could not remarry after his death has to be understood in its fuller context. The Quraan declared them to be the mothers of the believers. It was more of an honour to those women to have billions of spiritual children than to have temporary husbands.
Fourth, while the prophet (pbuh) was alive he offered them to opt for a separation so that they can go their separate ways. They had shown some discontent over the prophet's self-imposed poverty. But when the offer was made they refused to leave the prophet and his poverty. What would they choose after his death?
Fifth, a mother in Islam is more honourable than a wife. After they are already promoted to the respectable position as mother of all the believers why would they want to demote themselves to become wives of their spiritual sons? Dr. Shorrosh needs to look at this broader context in order to properly understand the honourable position of the wives of the prophet (pbuh).
Q. Is it true that the prophet (pbuh) had fallen in love with Zainab due to her beauty?
A. If that were true it would not detract from the veracity of the prophet. Muslims admit that he was a human being. It is not unnatural for a man to fall in love. The fact that he is a prophet does not rob him of his natural human emotions. In fact it is true that he loved his wives.
However, it is not true that he fell in love with Zainab in the way that is claimed by some critics. They say that once the prophet visited Zaid, the husband of Zainab. Zaid was out at the time, and Zainab was combing her hair. The prophet was struck by her beauty and immediately left saying something to the effect that God changes the hearts of people. When Zaid learnt about this incident he offered the prophet that he would divorce Zainab in order that the prophet may marry her. Accordingly, he divorced her and the prophet married her.
Several things point to the lack of truth in this story. First, it is unlikely that the prophet (pbuh) was suddenly struck by Zainab's beauty. Zainab was his cousin. He had known her since childhood. Why would she suddenly appear striking after she was already married to another?
Second, the prophet had arranged for her to get married to Zaid. If there was to be an attraction why did the prophet (pbuh) not encourage her to marry none but himself?
Third, the fact of the matter was that Zaid's marriage proved to be an unhappy one. Zaid was a former slave and as such was held in low esteem in the eyes of Zainab. He mentioned to the prophet that he intended to divorce his wife. But the prophet advised him to keep his wife and avoid divorce.
In the meantime, Zaid intended to divorce his wife, Allah intended to marry her to the prophet. Eventually Zaid could maintain his marriage no longer. He divorced Zainab and Allah declared in his Glorious Book that he has wedded her to the prophet after the proper waiting period was over.
This marriage served more than one purpose. First, the prophet was responsible for arranging Zainab's marriage to Zaid. In a sense, then, he was also indirectly responsible for the unhappiness she felt in her marriage. Her marriage to the prophet now provided her the honour she felt she deserved, and exonerated the prophet.
Second, Zaid had been adopted as the prophet's son. Eventually, however, the Quraan prohibited the practice of changing the parental identity of adopted persons. Zaid, then, was to no longer be called "son of Muhammad" but rather "a close friend." The prophet's marriage to the divorced wife of Zaid was a practical demonstration that the adopted relationship was not equal to a real blood-relationship. A man cannot marry the divorced wife of his real son but he can marry the divorced wife of his adopted son.
The abolishment of the age-old practice was a positive improvement for the adopted persons. People outside of Islam still continue this practice for their own benefit. They adopt children and rob them of their real identify, making them believe they are real children of the household in which they grow up. When such children realize the truth they suffer much disappointment and grief. The adoptive process continues for the selfish gain of the adoptive parents.
But is it not true that children sometimes need adoptive parents? Yes. But they also need to preserve their real identify. This is what Islam ensures. It is the responsibility of the entire community to help children in need. They should be taken in and nurtured but not confused with one's own children.
The prophet's marriage to Zainab was a bold measure to forever engrave in the minds of his followers that as much as people would resist change, some changes are worth the effort. Adoptive children should no longer be robbed of their real identities.
Was Muhammad (pbuh) literate?
Q. Muslims only claim that Muhammad was illiterate because they do not wish to admit that he wrote the Quraan. They want to substantiate the miraculous nature of the Quraan by claiming that Muhammad could not write.
A. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed illiterate. This fact of history will not change even if Muslims or non-Muslims wish it were otherwise. The Quraan is a source contemporary with the Prophet. This book acknowledges that the prophet could neither read nor write. Even Dr. Anis Shorrosh, admits that biological references in the Quraan are invaluable because they are contemporary with Muhammad (Islam Revealed, p. 47).
Here are some Quraanic references to the illiteracy of the prophet: 7:157; 29:46; 62:2
If Muhammad were indeed literate Muslims would not need to hide it. The fact that God revealed the Quraan would not change even if Muhammad were literate. When his contemporaries heard the Quraan many remarked: "This is no less than divine speech." Those who believed saw it not as the speech of a literate man but as the speech of no man whether literate or illiterate.
Incidents proving the literacy of the prophet?
Q. When the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah was to be signed, the nonbelievers objected because the treaty said "Muhammad the Messenger of Allah." They wanted the words "Messenger of Allah" struck out. Muhammad struck out the words and instead wrote "son of Abdullah."
A. Because of the variations in the reports which describe this incident one cannot be sure that the prophet himself wrote "son of Abdullah." But if for the sake of discussion we grant that he did, this does not detract from the fact that he was illiterate.
Seldom do we find a person who is so illiterate that he could not write his own name. Yet, if there is no evidence that a person wrote more than his name we do not have sufficient evidence to describe such a person as literate.
The title "son of Abdullah" would function as an identifying element in the prophet's name. Hence this would be roughly equivalent to someone writing Mark, son of John, or usually Mark Johnson. Writing this much not proof enough of a person's literacy. A man's ability to write his full name does not prove that he could write a book.
Q. When Muhammad was on his death bed he called for writing instruments so that he could write some final instructions. If he could not write, why did he ask for such materials?
A. Most officials write through secretaries. When such an official calls for writing instruments he intends for his secretaries to write. When he says, "I will write to you" he means, "I will dictate a letter to you; my secretaries will write it, or type it." The fact that the prophet called for writing instruments does not prove that he was literate.
Q. The prophet was a successful trader. Surely he knew how to read and write.
A. Being a successful trader is not proof enough that a person is literate. Many merchants are unable to compose a paragraph. As an example, my mother was a successful merchant. In all her trading years she affixed her thumbprint for a signature because she could not write her own name. In her retirement years she learnt how to write her name and a few simple words. But then she was known to be a registered student in a formal study program. This fact could not be hidden from her friends and relatives. How did Muhammad (pbuh) compose the most remarkable book of all time and yet his schooling remains a mystery?
Q. Dr. Anis Shorrosh says he saw a copy of a letter signed by Muhammad. Does this not prove that he could write?
A. If the letter is genuine it can only prove that the prophet could sign his own name. It does not prove that he could write a letter, much less a book. Notice that even Dr. Shorrosh does not claim that the prophet wrote the letter—only that he signed it.
Q. The prophet lived among eloquent bedouins. Surely he picked up beautiful 7th century Arabic from them.
A. Those people admitted that their beautiful 7th century Arabic was no match for the beauty and eloquence of the Quraan and the excellence of its teachings. They had to confess that the Quraan is no less than divine speech.
Q. Dr. Shorrosh says that when Gabriel commanded Muhammad to read, this implies that he could also write.
A. The logic in that statement is fuzzy. Just because a person can read is not proof enough that he can write. Many readers have never handled a pen.
Q. Dr. Shorrosh (p. 53) says that the Quraan refers to Muhammad as "one who taught by the pen" in surah 96:1-5.
A. On the contrary, the surah refers to Muhammad's Lord as the one who taught by the pen.
Q. Why did Muhammad consider suicide when he was troubled about the revelation?
A. He had no idea what to make of the experience. He grew up in a tradition in which angels did not visit people. A common interpretation in his culture would have been that he was seeing visions as a result of being jinn-possessed. This indeed is the accusation his people eventually levelled against him. Fearing that this interpretation was true, the prophet preferred to die rather than mislead his people. But before he could do anything, the angel Gabriel called out to him and assured him that he was indeed the messenger of God.
Q. Dr. Shorrosh (p. 54) concludes that at the moment of inspiration the prophet fell to the ground according to a tradition.
A. Notice that he did not say which tradition because there is no such tradition.
What about the Satanic Verses?
Q. Why were Muslims so angry with Salman Rushdie?
A. His book "The Satanic Verses" is a mockery of everything that Muslims hold sacred. It is a parody of the prophet Muhammad, his noble family, the book of God, and the prophets of God.
The book is a work of fiction in which the characters are made to represent the most noble characters of Islam. Yet the characters in the novel are made to indulge in sexual promiscuity. This to Muslims is more distasteful than if their own mothers were depicted in those scenes.
Q. Are people other than Muslims also upset over that publication?
A. Yes. Many non-Muslims thinkers and writers have also condemned the publication as being insensitive and knowingly provocative. On the other hand, many others argue in the name of freedom of speech that anyone should be free to express his ideas. But even those people must agree that freedom has its limits. One person should not be so free as to harm others and get away with it.
Some persons do not see why Muslims should be so upset over religion. Most people today think that religion is not important enough to get excited about. This may be their own conclusions about their own religions. But where they extend their conclusion to apply to Islam they are quite wrong. Muslims are still convinced that Islam is the truth to live for and die for. All the rational evidence is in favour of the Muslim position.
Q. Why does the book use the name "Satanic Verses"?
A. The title refers to a passage which was said to once form part of the Quraan and was later obliterated from the sacred scripture. The claim goes that when the Quraan was being handed down to the prophet a piece at a time, a piece came down to recognise the Gods of the prophet's opponents. The claim continues to assert that after a while the prophet declared these verses to be of satanic origin and that they are to be replaced by other verses of divine origin.
If this claim is true it does not affect the truth of Islam or the veracity of the Quraan. In sum, the claim is that the devil threw something into the Quraanic revelation but God blotted out what the devil threw and God established his own pure revelation. This is perhaps why some early Muslim sources did not shy away from recording this claim.
However, a full analysis of the story would prove the claim to be at best doubtful and at worst fictitious. It is most unlikely that the Quraan ever contained anything to honour or affirm the validity of any but the one true God Allah. If this was ever done it is difficult to see how anyone would not be utterly confused by such a passage. The call of Islam has always been known from the beginning to admit of only one God who has no partners, relatives, or intercessors.
The choice of the name "The Satanic Verses," therefore, was highly inappropriate—unless one was trying to be deliberately provocative. It would have been a different matter if someone had presented the idea of the claim about satanic verses for the sake of academic discussion. This indeed is often done in many writings. Muslims do not raise a cry against such writings because their claims are made in a style which can be responded to in likewise academic format. When, however, a claim is made within the framework of fiction, one is unable to respond. If one attempts, he is told, "C'mon, man, can't you take a joke? It's only fiction. The author didn't mean it."
Talking to Atheists
The key in talking to Atheists is to bring them back always to the fundamental questions. If they ask questions to raise objections to the details of Islam you can spend all day arguing and end up nowhere. What you need to do is to remind them of the hopeless position of an Atheist.
The Atheist position is indeed hopeless. The believer has hope. If there is a God and there is life after death then the believer wins. If there is no God or no life after death the believer loses nothing. On the other hand, the Atheist loses badly if he wakes up to discover himself in the afterlife. In sum, if there is no afterlife both the believer and the Atheist are safe. But if there is an afterlife then the Atheist loses. The only one who can possibly lose is the Atheist.
Now the Atheist can argue that if there is no afterlife then the believer has wasted his life in false hope. We can reply that Islam gives our lives order, meaning, balance, purpose, and direction. We have hope founded on clear facts and dependable revelation from Allah.
On the other hand, it is the Atheist who is wasting his life. His life has no purpose but temporary enjoyment. But such enjoyment is always tempered by nagging doubts about whether or not life is heading in the right direction. It is the believer who lives in quiet confidence that God's promise is true.
The key, then, is to remind the Atheist that he is the only one who stands to lose. Sure he may have questions, doubts, and objections to some of the details of Islam. But rather than waste a lot of time trying to answer for the details, bring the discussion back to the fundamentals. Is there a God? Is there an afterlife? Is the Atheist secure?
Even if the Atheist has doubts it is still reasonable for him to embrace Islam. To illustrate this fact, consider this situation. You are told that there is a speed-trap set by police to catch speeders on a certain road. Even if you doubt the information you must still act as though you believe it. You will slow down just to be on the safe side. You feel no need to start arguing that the police would never do a thing like that, or that you drove there before and never got caught speeding. In a similar sense the Atheist can simply submit in Islam although he still has doubts. Rather than argue about what he doubts he should first get on the safe side and then investigate further.
The reasonable thing, then, is for the Atheist to accept Islam right away. If he will not take this reasonable position, then why should you argue with an unreasonable person? Just remind him that even if Islam is wrong you are still safe. But if Islam is right he is in deep trouble. To use an expression, the Atheist may well be up the creek without a paddle.
Talking to Jews and Christians
Both Jews and Christians believe in that part of the Bible which Christians call the Old Testament. The Old Testament contains references to the prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace and blessings. That Book declared him to be a true prophet. So it is necessary for the Jew and Christian to believe that Islam is true. You therefore do not need to argue over the details of Islam with a Jew or Christian. If he thinks Islam is wrong on any point he has to answer for himself why his Bible recommends Muhammad if he taught a false religion. If he wants to reject the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then he has to also reject his Bible. But then if he rejects his Bible he is no longer a Jew or a Christian and you have won the debate.
Now what remains is for us to specify where in the Bible to find mention of our prophet. In the Old Testament there are many references. The most significant is Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. This verse mentions our prophet by name. It says in the Hebrew language Bibles "He is Muhammad." But English translation have "He is altogether lovely" instead of the real truth. You need to insist that, since it says our prophet's name in the Hebrew, the "altogether lovely" translation is nothing more than a camouflage hiding our prophet's name. Tell every Bible reader whether Jew or Christian to ask any Hebrew scholar to read the Hebrew word which appears as "altogether lovely" in the translation. You will hear that word pronounced "Muhammad." Why then hide what you should believe?
Now the Jew or Christian may feel backed into a corner and attempt to escape by throwing you this punch. They may say that if you refer to the Bible you should believe in everything it says. You should reply that you do not believe in everything the Bible says. And that is alright for you because you never claimed that the Bible is, in its present form, entirely the word of God. On the other hand both the Christian and the Jew say that the Song of Solomon is the word of God. How can they refuse what it says?
The important distinction is as follows. You are asking them to recognise the man whom their Bible speaks about not because you believe in their Bible but because they do. You are simply using a valid form of argument to establish a proof. What they accept as their authority is proof against them, not against you. You are simply turning their proof back on them. What they say is the Word of God is telling them to believe in Muhammad (pbuh). How can they escape this belief?
In sum, no matter what objection they raise against Islam, remember that in reply you can always argue as follows. If there is something wrong with Islam why does the Bible recommend the prophet who taught us this religion? If they cannot answer this then you also do not need to answer their objection.
If all this seems too easy it is just because the truth is on your side. It wins with flying colours. Allah says that when the truth is hurled against falsehood it smashes its core.
Hindus believe in many gods. These gods are described as having human form. Often they are couples, a male god and his female consort. Hindus make visual representations, images, and idols of these gods and worship before these. When you understand this you immediately realise that no Hindu should raise objections to Islam. If they feel that one of the minor items of Islam is wrong you should concentrate on showing them that at the fundamental level Hinduism is wrong.
All you have to do is remind them in a polite way about the nature of the gods they worship. Tell them that the problem they see or the objection they have against Islam is really only about one of the branches of Islam. The main trunk is the idea of God. So discussions about religion need to begin with the main trunk. First, we should discuss whether or not God exists. If we agree that God exists we must ask who is He, whether he is one or many, and whether he has wives and sons.
Once they agree to this reasonable framework for discussion, proceed to state your belief in the one
unseen creator of the heavens and the earth. Then ask the Hindu to tell you about his gods. If he is not fully aware you can help him to understand a few facts about his gods. Then the choice of God should become clear. Once you understand what Hindus believe about their gods you will see that the only reasonable choice for a rational Hindu is to accept Allah alone.
Here are a few quick facts about the Hindu gods. They believe that there are three principal gods: Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. Brahma creates; Shiva destroys; and Vishnu preserves. One makes, another breaks, and another keeps.
Each of these three have consorts. Brahma's wife is Saraswati. Shiva's wife is Parbatti. And Vishnu's wife is Lakshmi. As is already obvious, these gods are described as having very human characteristics. How can one of these or the three together create, govern and preserve the universe?
These gods also have human limitations and needs. For example, Shiva is known for his attachment to his wife. The religious books of the Hindus describe how Shiva was once busy with his wife when a saint came to see him. He did not pay proper respect to the saint, since he was occupied with his wife. The saint therefore put a curse on him with the result that today Shiva is worshipped in a representation as a male phallic symbol, called the lingam. His wife Parbatti is likewise worshipped in the representation of a female sexual part, called the yoni. Hindus look for stones that resemble these shapes and set them up for worship. They also deliberately carve such shapes to bow down before them. In some temples of Shiva you will find in the courtyard the two shapes together, one inserted in the other. Just open up this subject with any Hindu who objects to anything in Islam. Remember to be polite. Your aim is never to offend anyone. You simply need to deflect the objection by reminding the Hindu about his own religion. Being polite even works better.
Q. How many days did it take God to create the heavens and the earth? Some surahs say six. One surah says eight. Which is right?
A. Six is right. No surah says eight. Critics who are eager to find a contradiction in the Quraan try to make surah 42 say eight days. But they cannot prove their case. Actually, surah 42 agrees with the six day span mentioned in surahs 7:54; 10:3; 11:7; and 25:59.
The critics go about their business in a strange fashion. They notice in surah 42 verses 9-12 that Allah created the earth in two days and measured out its sustenance in four days. This comes to obviously six days altogether. But then the Quraan makes a further reference to the first two days. Critics want to add these two days to the already established total of six. But how can they? Do the critics wish to double-count? Or are they so over-zealous to find a contradiction that they would use any unreasonable means?
The bottom line is that this is not a contradiction in the Quraan. Despite the efforts of the critics building on the work of previous generations of critics not a single contradiction has been proven in the Quraan.
Yes. The Quraan speaks about the past, revealing details that were unknown to Muhammad and his countrymen. Yet independent research confirms the truth of what the Quraan revealed. The Quraan cannot be shown to have a single historical error.
The Quraan also speaks about the future. And the future unfolds exactly as the Quraan said it will. Not a single Quraanic prediction has ever failed.
The Quraan also reveals details about the natural sciences which were not discovered by scientists until a few decades ago. These facts were unknown to man, but revealed in the Quraan. Who revealed those facts if not God alone?
Now most people would trace back in history to the point when Muhammad was the first man to make the Quraan public. Then they would want to conclude that Muhammad must have written the book. But wait.
Many facts indicate that Muhammad did not write the book. First, Muhammad could not write except his own name. And even that is doubtful.
Second, Muhammad claimed over a period of 23 years that the Quraan was from God alone and that he himself was only a conduit though whom the book was made public. God revealed it, he said.
Could he have been lying? No. Even his enemies knew him to be an honest and trustworthy individual. How could he tell such a big lie involving God? And how could he maintain that lie for such a long time?
Were there opportunities for him to modify his claim? Yes. Did he? No. His opponents offered to buy him off with money, power, and women. He refused. What then could be his motive for maintaining his position? It could not have been money, power, or women.
His opponents offered to accept a modified version of the Quraan. This was an easy way out for him. Or was it? He said he dares not change a single thing in the Quraan lest Allah strikes him with a severe punishment.
Instead, Muhammad bore all kinds of persecution from his enemies just because he will not stop preaching. He watched his close friends and followers being beaten, tortured, and killed. He himself was insulted, beaten, spat upon, choked, stoned, and almost killed. Did he give up? No. Why? This demonstrates his sincerity. When he said that the Quraan was from Allah he really believed it.
Could he have been deluded? No. The Quraan speaks to Muhammad, commands him, corrects him, and instructs him. If Muhammad wrote this book he would have been a madman. But then if he was a madman he could not have written such a book.
The Quraan is such a complete and comprehensive constitution for life that it could not have been written by a madman. The book itself challenges its opponents to come up with one better. The intelligentsia of the world could not write a better book. Then why do they insist that a madman wrote it? Is it because they do not want to accept it as a revelation from their God and creator?
Moreover, we have already seen that the Quraan contains information about the past and the future. How could such information come from the brain of any man? More so, how could it come from the brain of a deluded man? It couldn't.
The Quraan contains a further challenge to the world. It claims itself to be an inimitable masterpiece the like of which could never be produced by man. Not to speak of the whole book, the like of any one surah could not be man-made. Now all critics have to do is produce a surah of literary beauty and eloquence similar to the Quraan. Many have tried, all have failed. It simply cannot be done. Why? Allah said it and none will ever be able to contradict Allah.
The non- Arabic speaker may wonder whether he is disadvantaged to meet this challenge. Is there any way for such persons to appreciate the significance of this challenge? Yes. In every field of knowledge we rely on experts to share with us their findings. The experts in the field of Arabic linguistics have nothing but admiration and appreciation for the wisdom and beauty of the Quraan and the eloquence of its expressions. The non-Arabic speaker should ask such experts why they are unable to meet the Quraanic challenges. Then they can make up their own minds about what to believe.
There is one more exercise to recommend for the skeptic. The Quraan claims to be free from error. Which other book claims this? None! No, not even the Bible. Why only the Quraan? Because all other books are authored in whole or in part by fallible humans. Only the Quraan is revealed entirely from the infallible Wise Allah. Can the skeptic disprove this claim by finding a single error in the Quraan? Again, many skeptics have tried. All have failed. No real error in the Quraan has ever been established although many imaginary errors have been claimed. The Quraan remains demonstrably true in its entirety.
Q. What about the Surahs on the Internet?
A. Recently some Christian missionaries posted on the internet four surahs in answer to the Quraanic challenge. However, none of the four surahs can be a match for the surahs of the Quraan for the following reasons.
First, the missionary surahs are lacking in reason. They mimic some of the rhyme of the Quraan, but nothing of the reasonableness of the Quraanic teachings. The missionaries attempted to teach Christianity by means of their surahs. But Christianity is inherently self-contradictory. It makes no sense that Jesus is both man and God, that God is both one and three, or that an innocent man is crucified so that the guilty can go free. If such beliefs are expressed in eloquent language the expression will not match the Quraan which is the right combination of rhyme, rhythm and reason.
To further explain this inadequacy of the missionary surahs, consider the case of an evil person having lovely appearance. One who can see past the outward beauty will find the core repugnant. Likewise patently false teachings cannot be improved by expressing them in eloquent writings. Of course one can always use such a gimmick to fool those who look only at the surface. But for those who look deeper it just will not work.
Second, to meet the challenge one has to invent something new, not copy something existing. By mimicking the Quraan the missionaries fail in meeting the challenge. The Quraan calls for an invention, not a plagiarization.
The point of the challenge is this. Skeptics claim that Muhammad invented the Quraan on his own; that he did not get it from God. Allah's reply is that Muhammad could not have invented it. But those who think he did should likewise try to invent a surah like it. If they say Muhammad did it why can't they likewise do it? But notice what Muhammad did not do. He did not plagiarize. He did not mimic the existing styles of writing. What he recited to the people did not fit any of the existing styles. The recitations was completely new. Let the skeptics likewise produce something new. This the missionaries have failed to do.
Their failure in this respect is remarkably pronounced. They have borrowed so much from the Quraan that whole phrases from the Quraan (and even the hadith) appear in the missionary surahs. In one of their surahs they even reproduced the phrase "Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem" having plagiarized it wholesale from the Book of Allah. Sorry, guys, this is not what the Quraan asked for. Please try again. Or, have you considered surrendering yourselves to your maker?
Q. Why does the Quraan speak highly of the Torah and the Injeel if they are corrupt?
A. The Quraan declares that Muslims must believe in the original Torah and Injeel, not the present day changed versions. When Torah or Injeel is mentioned in the Quraan a reader must establish from the context which versions are referred to — the real or the corrupt. Careful readers will notice that whereas many Quraanic passages praise the Torah and injeel, some other passages candidly chastise the scribes who made changes or writers who wrote without authority.
It is true that the Quraan does not use the terms "real Torah" or "corrupt Torah." But usually this is quite clear from the context. The mere fat that the name Torah refers to both the real thing and its altered version should come as no surprise. There are many different Bibles. Yet each is called a Bible. But in a given context one can usually tell whether one is speaking of a Jewish Bible, a Catholic Bible or a Protestant Bible. When, for example, a Protestant uses the term he certainly does not mean the Catholic version unless he speaks of it in derision. Similarly, when the Quraan praises the Bible it is referring to the Bible which is unchanged.
On the other hand, the Quraan in 2:79, and 9:30 make it clear that not the entire Bible is from God.