MUSLIM USE OF CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES

by
Joseph Kenny, O.P., and S. Babs Mala,
University of Ibadan

Muslim presuppositions regarding Christian Scriptures

The Qur'ân, the sacred book of Islam, makes reference to earlier Scripture. While Muhammad was still in Mecca, Qur'ânic verses mention only "the book" or "the Scripture" (al-kitàb) revealed beforehand, as in 4:136: "O believers, believe in God and his messenger and in the Book which he brought down to his messenger, and in the Book which lie revealed before. He who disbelieves in God and his angels and his books and his messengers and the Last Day, is indeed in great error." So also the infant Jesus is made to say: "I am a servant of God. He gave me the Book and made me a prophet" (19:30). (1) The same term is used for Moses: "We gave Moses the Book that they might be rightly guided" (23:49). There is also mention of the "first pages (suhuf), the pages of Abraham and Moses" (87:18-19). After Muhammad moved to Medina, Qur'ânic verses make specific reference to the Torah (tawra), the Psalms (zabûr) and the Gospel (injîl), revealed respectively to Moses, David and Jesus. (2)

The very term for revelation, anzala or nazzala (sent down) implies a divine and perhaps an angelic activity without any necessity for human cooperation. In fact, Muslim theology has developed the idea that the heavenly books came down to the prophets completely formed to the last word. The role of the prophet was simply to transmit verbally the message he heard. (3) Professor W. Montgomery Watt has examined Qur'ânic grounds for a suppler idea of revelation which admits the possibilities: (a) that Muhammad himself was left to find the precise words for the message he received from without, (b) that the essential religious message was accommodated to the common ideas the Arabs had about history and other matters; thus the Qur'ân makes use of stories circulating about Old Testament figures, even if they are erroneous in some details. (4) Nevertheless literal inspiration is the prevalent Muslim position. Divine Scripture can have no room for human influence, cultural colouring or personal touches. (5)

The Islamic view of revelation bas consequences on the view of authorship. The prophet can in no way be the author of a revealed book, but only its transmitter. In this way, just as Jewish tradition attributed the first five books of the Bible entirely to Moses (as their transmitter), so Islamic tradition attributes the Gospel to Jesus. There is no place for multiple evangelists and writers of epistles etc., much less for any oral development preceding the final written formulation of a book.

Particular objections and an evaluation of them

With these expectations of Christian Scripture, it is no wonder that Muslims do not consider as authentic the Scriptures that Christians actually use, Their objections to Christian Scriptures can be summarized under the following points:

Some (Jews) hear the word of God and then, even though they understand it knowingly pervert it (yuharrifûnahu) (2:75).

There is also the charge of forgery of Scripture on the part of
Gentiles (umiyyûn) among them who do not know Scripture, but only their own fancies.... Woe to those who write Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from God, that they may make by it a small gain (2:78-9).

Another charge is that the distortion takes place in the recitation of a presumably sound text:
Some of them distort Scripture with their tongues, that you may think they are reciting from Scripture,.while they are not (3:78; see also 4:46).

A final accusation is that the Jews (and perhaps Christians) hide or ignore parts of the Scripture which would exhort them them to accept the preaching of Muhammad:

(The Jews) distort (yuharrifûna) words from their meanings, and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of... We made a covenant with those who say "We are Christians", but they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of... People of the Book, our Messenger has come to you, making clear to you many things in the Book you have been concealing and many things you have been effacing" (5:13-15; on concealment see also 2:42,140,159,174; 3:71;6:91).

Christians living in a Muslim environment have to consider these objections, because they are questions they may be asking themselves first of all, and secondly they may have occasion to explain their own position to Muslims. We will consider the last objection in particular, and then the rest in general.

The Qur'ânic passages just cited show that the objection of tahrîf is directed mainly against Jews, yet it is not clear to what extent this distortion, forging, concealinq and effacing affect the actual texts that Jews and Christians use. The more obvious meaning of the accusations is that the scriptural text is basically sound, but was abused by Jews who recited it wrongly, concealed or effaced certain passages prophesying Muhammad, or passed off other fabricated passages as Scripture.

The impression that the Scriptures are sound is confirmed by Qur'ânic statements that the Jews have inherited the Scripture and that they and the Christians read it and must abide by it, for example: "Do you enjoin what is just and proper on men and forget it yourselves, even though you read Scripture?" (2:44; cf. also 2:113,121; 3:81,84,113-119; 4:136; 5:43,68; 7:170; 29:46; 42:14-15). The Qur'ân is said to confirm the truth of the previous Scriptures (2:41,89,97,101; 3:3; 4:47; 6:92; 10:37; 46:12,30) and there is, finally, the extraordinary statement that "if you are in doubt about what was revealed to you (Muhammad), ask those who were reciting Scripture before you" (10:92).

The latter verse, however, was interpreted from an early date as referring to Jews or Christians who had become Muslim. Most early Qur'ân commentators held that the Bible was completely corrupt and unreliable. Likewise Ibn-Hazm (d.1064), wanting to prevent Muslims in Spain from reading the Bible at all, maintained that it was completely corrupt and full of contradictions. At-Tabari (d.923), however, followed by al-Baydâwî (d.1388), represents the prevalent trend of thought that the Bible is authentic in part; thus some passages can be interpreted as prophesying Muhammad and Islam. As a result, while tahrîf has become a dogma for Muslims generally, its meaning is not very precise. This imprecision enables Muslims to pick and choose Scriptural passages which suit their apologetic purposes and reject others. It also enables them to protect the faith of the masses by discouraging them from reading the Bible, because any truth it contains is sufficiently expressed in the Qur'ân, which is the perfect Scripture. Yet should anyone happen to hear a passage of the Bible which disturbs his faith, he can be assured that the passage is corrupt. (6)

In reply to the objection of tahrîf, Muslims can be invited to consider the following points:

As a general approach to the remaining objections, the following background points should be understood in some depth:

Usual apologetics: supposing scriptural authenticity

Muslim tradition, as we have seen, does not recognize Christian Scripture as authentic as a whole. Yet it has usually been prepared to see here and there some verses which filtered through untampered from the original revelation. The basic principle of judgement is that the Scriptural passage must be in conformity with the Qur'ân. (7) Nigerian Muslim preachers constantly stress three themes in their writings and sermons an radio and television:

Exceptional apologetics: attacking the Scriptures

Alongside the type of apologetics just described the radical approach of Ibn-Hazm has been revived by Pakistani writers, particularly Ahmadis, and has been taken up by many Sunni Nigerian writers. This kind of apologetics rejects the authenticity of the New Testament, and argues first by attacking the person of Jesus as he is described in the New Testament, and secondly by quoting the arguments of rationalists critics of the Bible over the past one hundred years. Even modern exegetes who believe in the Bible are quoted in support of facts which do not meet Muslim criteria of authenticity and inspiration. One of the noteworthy Nigerian writers who has taken up this trend is Alhaji A. 0. Aiijola, former legal adviser of the NPC, in his book The myth of the Cross (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1975), which is "dedicated to the Nigerian Muslim youths who attended Christian missionary schools and were subjected to vigorous propaganda by the Christian missionaries." In this book he gives some of the following examples of Jesus' bad character:

When Jesus said to the Canaanite woman: "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (Mt.15 26), Ajijola says, "He not only dishonoured this woman from Canaan but also dishonoured the entire fair sex and proved by his own utterance that he had nothing to give to poor women" (p.122). Similarly, of Jesus' words to his Mother: "Woman, what have I to do with you?" (Jn.2-4), Ajijola says: "Will any Christian today dismiss his mother contemptuously and yet be counted as decent? Why then did the Gospel writers single out Jesus for such a ridiculous description? Respect for mothers is a common virtue even among primitive communities. It is an aspect of good manners which the worst of human beings display. But if the Gospel narrative is to be believed, this last teacher of Israel, this hero of the Mosaic tradition, who came to lead a people from darkness into light and to teach them good morals, was rude to his mother and behaved insolently towards her" (p.123).

Alhaji Ajijola also quotes Gospel passages to prove that Jesus, according to the Bible, is a sinner. For example:"The Gospel also tells of Jesus' lies. On the feast of the Tabernacles, Jesus replied to his brothers: "Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to the feast," and after his brothers were gone, "he also went up, not publicly but in private" (Jn. 7:8-10).

We could go on with examples, but these are enough to get an idea of this approach. Facing such criticisms, a Christian should learn to appreciate the very human and dramatic character of the gospels, something the Qur'ân does not have. The Qur'ân could be compared with the Priestly source of the Pentateuch, with its pure and elevated style of teaching, in contrast to the Yahwist story-telling style.

The Gospel of Barnabas (17)

Muslim use of Scripture is not limited to canonical Christian Scriptures. There is a plethora of apocryphal literature distributed in Nigeria which no Church, Protestant or Catholic, accepts. This ranges from the Pseudepigrapha of the early centuries of the Christian era to modern magical and occult books, such as the "Lost Books of Moses". The most frequently quoted non-canonical book is the Gospel of Barnabas, which was first published in Italian with an English translation by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg in Oxford in 1907. In the following year it was translated into Arabic and published in Cairo, and reprinted many times. Copies of the whole Gospel are not common, but quotations from it are very frequently found in Muslim apologetic writings. Most recently we noticed reference to it in a publication of the Indian author M. Ataur Rahman Bihari, The religion of all prophets only one (1974), distributed by the Jama'atu Nasril Islam of Kaduna. A 1974 Pakistani edition of the entire text is now being sold in Nigerian bookstores.

It is understandable that Muslims should be attracted to this gospel, whose full-title is The true Gospel of Jesus, called Christ, a new Prophet sent by God to the world, according to the description of Barnabas his apostle. Its description of Jesus matches closely that of Jesus in the Qur'ân. Jesus even announces the coming of Muhammad by name and appears as Muhammad's forerunner. He ends his work on earth by being taken up to heaven, while Judas, who looked like Jesus, was crucified in his place.

The evidence, however, is decisive that this work is only a forgery of the late16th century. This is the conclusion of the editors of the 1907 Oxford edition, and it has been maintained by all Western scholars who have studied the question ever since. Without attempting to repeat the thorough, detailed reasons these scholars give, we can summarize their arguments under the following points:

These are sufficient grounds for both Muslims and Christians to reject the Gospel of Barnabas. At the Vatican-Muslim dialogue in Tripoli in February 1976 Fr. Georges Anawati, O.P. appealed to the Muslims to refrain in particular from using this book in their writings about Christianity. Its continued use compels us to repeat the appeal and forewarn Christian readers about the worth of the book.

1. Qur'ân references follow the verse numbering of the Cairo edition (followed by the Picktall translation), but translations are original.

2. The Tawra and Injîl are usually mentioned together, as in 3;3, 48-50,65,93 (Tawra alone); 5;43-47,66,68,110; 7:157; 9;111; 48:29; 57:27 (Injîl alone); 61:6 (Tawra and Jesus); 62:5 (Tawra alone). The Zâbûr is mentioned separately with reference to David in 4:164; 17:55; 21:105. For a general discussion of the attitude to Christian Scripture in the Qur'ân see J.Jomier, O.P., The Bible and the Koran (Chicago: Regnery, 1959), chs. 4-6.

3. In usual treatises of kalâm the Qur'ân is discussed under the headings of: (1) God's speech, where it is said to be the uncreated speech of God, (2) prophesy, where the role of the prophet is set forth as simply to hear and faithfully transmit God's message, and (3) the proof of Muhammad's mission from the miraculous inimitability (i`jâz) of the Qur'ân, especially in reference to the claims made in Q.2:23-24; 17:88; and 52:33-34. Cf. J.Kenny, Muslim theology as presented by Muhammad ibn-Yusuf as-Sanusi, especially in his al-`Aqîda al-wustâ (Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1970), pp. 159-163, 204-208, 227-233.

4. These ideas were put forward in Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford, 1953), pp. 26-39, 52-59, and developed in Islamic revelation in the modern world (Edinburgh, 1969), especially in chs.2 & 3, and Bell's Introduction to the Qur'ân (Edinburgh 1970) pp. 18-24.

5. A random, but typical, statement is that of M.A.Rauf, Islam: faith and devotion (Lagos, 1974), p.10: "Muhammad merely learned the words of Gabriel and then transmitted them to his disciples." To show that Muhammad knew of Old Testament events only by revelation, reference is sometimes made to Q.28:43-48 (his not being present at various O.T. events), 1:49 (regarding Noah), 3:44 (regarding Mary), and 29:48 (his not having recited or written Scripture before receiving the Qur'ân).

6. Cf. W. Montgomery Watt, Islam and the integration of society (London, 1961), pp. 258-267.

7. For detailed rules on how to judge the authenticity of a particular text, see J. Kenny, op.cit., pp. 225-6.

8. Alhaji Bolaji writes mostly in Yoruba; among his works are: Iwe waka Kiriyo (The book of Christian sermons), Iwe waka Yehudi (The book of Jewish sermons), Ipade Akewukewe pelu Akande Ogbomoso (The meeting of Akewukewe and Akande of Ogbomoso.) The following passages are cited in his The true light, and Biblical prophesies of the Holy Prophet of Islam for Nigerian students (Lagos, 1964), pp. 7-11.

9. The text (RSV) reads: "God came from Teman, and the Holy one from Mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise." This is a classical apologetic text; cf. J. Kenny, op. cit., p. 247.

10. The text reads: "The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand." The Hebrew in this passage has no cognate of "Nûr". This is also a, classical apologetic text; cf. J. Kenny, op. cit., p.238.

11. The text (RSV) reads: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the people."The Hebrew literally reads: "until he comes to Shiloh" (a town), but the versions usually correct the word Shiloh to give a more satisfactory reading. Thus LXX, JB and RSV have se-loh, "to whom" the staff belongs; Vg has salûh, "the one to be sent"; NAB, NER & JPS have say-loh, "Tribute (will come) to him".

12. This is one of the earliest cited texts in Muslim apologetics; cf. W. Montgomery Watt, Islam and the integration of society, p.263, and J. Kenny, op.cit., pp.239-241. The identification of the Paraclete with the Prophet of Islam could have come from the Syriac word for the Paraclete, manhamamma or muhammana, which was confused with Muhammad, or from reading the Greek meaning para,klhtoj as peri,klutoj, meaning "resplendent", "praiseworthy" or "Ahmad"; cf. J. Kenny, ibid., and Robert Caspar, Cours de theologie musulman, v. 2 (Rome,1974), p. 58.

13. The translation, from the Arabic text of as-Sanûsî, is close to RSV; cf. J. Kenny, op. cit., p. 238. This is also one of the earliest texts used in Muslim apologetics; cf. W. Montgomery Watt.

14. The following references are in his The religions of all prophets only one (Kaduna: Jama'atu Nasril Islam, 1974). pp. 14-16.

15. Cf. Alhaji Bolaji, op. cit., pp.1-2, and M.O.A. Abdul, Islam and Christianity united (Lagos: Islamic Publications Bureau, 1971), p. 24.

16. The myth of the cross (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1975) p. 22.

17. This section makes use of J. Jomier, O.P., "L'Evangile selon Barnabé," M.I.D.E.O., 6 (1959-61), pp. 137-226; Jan Slomp, "The Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas," Encounter, n.18 (October, 1975), and "The Gospel in dispute," Islamochristiana, 4 (1978), pp. 67-112.