The Prophet Pick-and-Choose: How Islam’s Use of the Bible Is Theologically Dishonest
Part 4
Introduction: The Selective Game Muslims Play with Scripture
After exposing the Qur'an’s affirmation of the Gospel (Pt.1), the early scholars' unintentional support for the uncorrupted Injil (Pt.2), and the later invention of the textual corruption doctrine (Pt.3), it’s time to unmask one final charade: Islam’s selective use of the Bible.
Muslim apologists routinely quote the Bible when they think it helps prove Muhammad’s prophethood (usually from Deuteronomy 18 or the Paraclete passages in John). But when the same Bible affirms Christ’s deity, crucifixion, or the Trinity, it’s suddenly “corrupted.”
This is not exegesis. It’s theological cherry-picking. And it exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of Islamic polemics.
1. The Quran Affirms the Bible… Until It Doesn’t The Qur'an says:
“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.” (5:47)
“We sent Jesus… confirming the Torah that came before him… in the Gospel is guidance and light.” (5:46)
“If you are in doubt… ask those who read the Book before you.” (10:94)
If the Bible was trustworthy enough to prove Muhammad’s legitimacy, it should be trustworthy enough in all its content. You can’t have it both ways.
2. Deuteronomy 18: A Misused Prophecy Muslim apologists claim that Deuteronomy 18:18 (“a prophet like Moses”) refers to Muhammad. But this ignores:
The prophecy was for Israelites — “from among their brothers” refers to fellow Jews.
The New Testament applies this to Jesus, not Muhammad (Acts 3:22).
Muhammad was not like Moses: he was not a lawgiver in the Mosaic covenantal sense, nor was he an Israelite.
Even worse? Muslims reject the Torah’s authority when it contradicts the Qur’an but quote this one verse. That’s theological hypocrisy.
3. The Paraclete in John: Rewriting the Comforter Another popular claim is that Jesus’ prophecy of the “Comforter” (John 14–16) refers to Muhammad. But this fails miserably:
The Comforter is called the Holy Spirit, not a man.
He is to live in believers, not merely speak to them.
He is sent after Jesus’ ascension, not centuries later.
Quoting this while denying Jesus’ crucifixion (also in the Gospel of John) is self-defeating. You can’t mine truth from a book you claim is false.
4. Galatians 1:8 – The Gospel’s Own Built-In Filter The New Testament anticipates false gospels. Paul writes:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Gal. 1:8)
Muslims claim the angel Gabriel brought a new gospel to Muhammad. According to the New Testament, this is grounds for outright rejection.
5. You Can’t Slice Scripture Without Bleeding Theology Muslim polemics use Scripture like a buffet: take a verse that sounds convenient, ignore the ones that refute your entire worldview. But the Bible is a coherent whole:
It presents Jesus as God incarnate, not just a prophet.
It insists on His death and resurrection, central to salvation.
It condemns additions to the Gospel, like those introduced by the Qur’an.
Selective quoting isn’t scholarship. It’s sabotage.
Conclusion: You Can’t Borrow a Book You’re Trying to Burn Islam wants the Bible’s legitimacy without its theology. It tries to use a book that refutes Islam at every turn to somehow support Muhammad.
This is the final nail: Muslims can either reject the Bible outright (in which case they lose the very verses they try to use), or accept it (and abandon Islam).
You can’t preach a new gospel while leaning on the authority of the old.
Islam can’t live off the very text that disproves it.
No comments:
Post a Comment