The Qur’an is the last version of God’s revelation and what it says is the ultimate truth. This might not mean much for those who do not believe in the Qur'an as such. However, the history of the Qur'an, modern textual criticism and scientific research of the content of this scripture leave no doubt about the truth it contains.
Well you have to pick and choose among your textual critics. After all there are a lot of textual analysists in the West who do not accept this.
The frequently made statements that the Qur'an is the word of Muhammad who copied his information from Jewish and Christian sources is made by people who do not know the history of the world, the Qur'an or Muhammad. The first Arabic translation of the Bible appeared two centuries after Muhammad's mission.
Really? What is your evidence for that? And this is a serious question - How do you reconcile that belief with the Hadith, such as,
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him.
>deletions<
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."
It has always looked to me as if there was a Bible in Arabic around at the time. Muhammed's cousin by marriage wrote one. It just has not survived. Which is not to say Muhammed studied it. Just that there was one around. Or of course Bukhari is wrong.
If we add to this Muhammad's illiteracy and the scarcity of religious books in any language outside churches and temples in the sixth century we can understand the absurdity of this allegation.
Assuming that Muhammed was illiterate. I wonder when that idea arose and if it had anything to do with Christians accusing Muhammed of copying their scriptures and making it all up. Does anyone have any idea when the first reference to his illiteracy was?
It is common knowledge that the divinity of Jesus was introduced by Saint Paul and his followers and was established on the dead bodies of millions of Christians through history which evoked the Castillo's well-known remark "To burn a man is not to prove a doctrine."
Come on now. Common knowledge? Millions? Pull the other one.
Some of those books were written by Jesus's disciples. If they were not more authentic than the four gospels they were of equal authenticity. Some of them still are available such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas which agree with the Qur’an.
Well self-evidently the Christians do not think they were written by Jesus's disciplies, nor is there any obvious political purpose to the Christians choosing the ones they chose. Nor is there the slightest reason to think that they are even of equal authenticity. You may think so, and you are welcome to, but your claim is both baseless and insulting to Christians. They do not agree with the Quran. Bits of them, used selectively, might.
]The Unitarian concept and the humanness of Jesus is not only held by Muslims but also by Jews and by some early groups of Christianity such as the Ebionites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians and the Hypisistarians to name several early sects. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus as a prophet of God. Even in the modern age there are churches in Asia, in Africa, the Unitarian church, and Jehova Witnesses who do not worship Jesus as God.
Which is to say minorities of utter insignificance. You are also doubling up some of your references. Goths, an ethnic group, were Arians, a religious sect.
The best George Carey could say in his attempt to refute the findings of those theologians is that unless one takes Jesus as God Incarnate one won't be able to understand Jesus' mission or explain its impact on people. This definitely is a very weak argument because all great prophets such as Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad have had a tremendous impact on people and none of them claimed that he was God or a son of God.
Actually it goes to the heart of Christian doctrine. Either Jesus is God incarnate or there is no reason to be a Christian.
