Posts Tagged ‘invitation2truth’

Islam And The Theory Of Evolution

December 17, 2007

The article is divided in to 2 sections: Islamic perspective of Theory of Evolution and does it disprove God?

Islamic perspective of Theory of Evolution
Research Committee of IslamToday.net under the supervision of Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî, wrote about Islamic stance on Evolution. Full article can be viewed at http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=792

Article states:
“We as Muslims must ask: Does the theory of evolution – and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution – conform to Islamic teachings or conflict with them? Is a Muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that Allah is behind it? Is a Muslim allowed to believe in human evolution? If not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered? We wish to re-emphasize that our concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. What we want to know is what Islamic teachings have to say about the idea. Whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether. When we look at the sources of Islam – the Qur’ân and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [Sûrah al-Hujûrât:13] The Prophet (peace be upon him) identified the “male” mentioned in this verse as being Adam. He said: “Human beings are the children of Adam and Adam was created from Earth. Allah says: ‘O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing’.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3270)] We also see that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents. Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59] We also know that Eve was created from Adam without the agency of parents. In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1] Therefore, the Qur’ân tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah. ”

and

“The only thing that the Qur’ân and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that Allah created them in whatever manner He decided to create them. Allah says: “Allah is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.” [Sûrah al-Zumar: 62] Indeed, Allah states specifically that He created all life forms: “And We made from water all living things.” [Sûrah al-Anbiyâ’: 30] We know that “Allah does what He pleases.” Allah can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses. Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection.”

Therefore muslims believe that Adam and Eve were created without parents. However, Adam and Eve did not evolve from other species. Furthermore, there is no explicit prohibition on believing in Nature Selection or Evolution of other animals. In summary, human evolution is against Quran and Sunnah, however, the evolution of other living things is not denied by Quran and Sunnah, according to the article.

If we for the sake of argument assume that Theory of Evolution is valid, does it disprove God or disprove the concept of a “supernatural being”? Examining the complexity of life might answer this question.

Cells
Cells are made up of many organelles, which are sub-units within the cells, carrying out a certain task. Cells are many times more complex than it was even imagined at Darwin’s time. They are made up of many subunits such as Ribosome, lysosome, golgi apparatus, Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum, Smooth Endoplasmic Reticulum, microtubules, cell membrane, mitochondria, nucleolus and many others. Each of these are vital for an ordinary eukaryotic cells and even for many prokaryotic cells. Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example:

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity(a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man…”

W. R. Bird writes in “The Origin of Species Revisited”., Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 298-99:
“The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.”

Every organelle, such as cell membrane, is extremely complex. Cell membrane, as wide as 7nm, consists of: a special type of lipid called phospholipid bilyer, protein channels for facilitated diffusion and active transport, glycoproteins, glycolipids, cholesterol and many other substances. In essence, we find perfection even in something as small as cells and cell membranes.

Proteins
Even biochemical molecules’ complexity is incredible. Let us examine the probability of a protein emerging from chance:

Proteins are made from string of amino acids joined together by peptide bond. A typical protein can contain around 550 amino acids, Haemoglobin contains around 574 amino acids. These amino acids must be in a specific order in the chain. However there are alternative amino acids, which can form a substitute and still result in the same protein, however this is very rare. As a reasonable amount, we shall assume that 500 amino acids have to be in correct and exact order to make 550 amino acids long protein:

Since there are 20 amino acids found in nature, chance of the next amino acid being correct would be 1/20. Thus the probability of making a protein of 500 amino acids being in the correct and exct order by chance:

(1/20)^500 (^ represents ‘to the power of ‘)
or:
= 500 * [log (1/20)/log(1/10)]
= approximately (1/10)^650

Furthermore the amino acids have to be left handed in the protein molecule. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. If protein were coming by chance, theoretically speaking, the protein molecule would have equal number of left-handed amino acids as right-handed amino acids. However in living things, all of the amino acids in the protein chain are left-handed amino acids. Therefore the probability of next amino acid also being left handed is: 1/2.

The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time:
= (1/2)^500 (^ represents ‘to the power of ‘)
or:
= 500 * [log (1/2)/log(1/10)]
= approximately (1/10)^150

Furthermore, the amino acids are linked by a special kind of bond known as “peptide bond”. The chances of the next bond being peptide is 50%:

The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond” is: 1/2

The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds:
= (1/2)^499 (^ represents ‘to the power of ‘)
or:
= 499* [log (1/2)/log(1/10)]
= approximately (1/10)^150

TOTAL PROBABILITY = (1/10)^650 * (1/10)^150 * (1/10)150 = 10^950

(^ represents ‘to the power of ‘ and * represents multiplication)

So the probability of 650 amino acids stringing together by chance and forming a protein is around 10^950, which is 1 chance in 10^950.

Genes and DNA
There are around 30,000 genes in the human body, incorrect sequences of nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. Frank B. Salisbury writes in “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution”, American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336:

“A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNAgene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4^1000=10^600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.”
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 10^40000. (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

Scientists’ comments regarding “chance”
“The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.” — Ali Demirsoy, Kalýtým ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 64

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” — Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” — Francis Crick, Life Itself: It’s Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88

Therefore even if Theory of Evolution is true, it still does not disprove the concept of God, on the contrary the complexity of life seems to necessities the need of a creator or supernatural being.

html hit counter
visitors since 15/07/2006

Advertisements

Did Muhammed Copy And Plagarise Bible? Did Prophet Muhammed Author Quran for Worldly Gains?

December 17, 2007

Could Prophet Muhammed Have Read Bible And Copied?
Quran and the Hadith state that Prophet Muhammed was Ummi. Quran 7:158 states:

[007:158] Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all – (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no God save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright. (Pickthall Translation, Quran 7:158)

Pickthall translated the word Ummi as “who can neither read nor write”.

According to Ectaco English-Arabic Online Dictionary ( http://www-old.ectaco.com), arabic word Ummi (أمي) means:
“ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED” Source: http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?lang=3&q=1&refid=316&rfr_id=1&rqt_id=19731153&pagelang=23&word=%C3%E3%ED&direction=2&x=37&y=15

And according to Ectaco English-Arabic Online Dictionary ( http://www-old.ectaco.com), arabic words for illiterate are:
أمي ِ يقرأ وِ يكتب, جاهل, أمي Source: http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?lang=3&q=2&refid=316&rfr_id=1&rqt_id=19731153&pagelang=23&word=ILLITERATE&direction=1
Quran also states that Prophet Muhammed was illiterate. Quran 29:048 says:
[029:048] And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted. (Yusuf Ali Translation, Quran 29:48)

So until that point we can be sure that Prophet Muhammed could not read nor write. Naturally, if prophet could read or write then Non-Muslims would have exposed prophet Muhammed as a liar. They would have seen Prophet Muhammed writing or reading and used that as an evidence that he lied in Quran 29:48. Their reaction and refusal to use 29:48 as a proof to demonstrate that prophet Muhammed was a liar is a solid proof that prophet Muhammed could really not read nor write and nor could he consquently have read Bible personally.

Did Waraqa Ibn Nawful teach Prophet Muhammed?
Waraqa was a cousin of Khatija (RA), first wife of Prophet Muhammed. He was a learned man and was well versed in New Testament. Some assert that Waraqa could have been teaching prophet Muhammed. There are several historical and logical flaws in that assertion.

Sahih bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 states:
“…Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, “Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.” But after a few days Waraqa died…” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3)

Firstly, Waraqa died few days later after Prophet Muhammed recieved the first revelation of the Quran. Since Waraqa died after few days later then he cannot have been the source of Quran, since the Quran continued to be revealed continuously upto 23 years after his death. Naturally, since he was dead he could not have been teaching Prophet Muhamnmed or been the source of Quran!

Secondly, Waraqa was a pious and a wise man, who dedicated much of his life in the search of God. However, he stated in 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.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605)

Thus he was intending to support Prophet Muhammed and accepted his prophethood. If he had been the source of Quran then he would have exposed prophet Muhammed and refused to follow him! It must be remembered that Waraqa was a god-fearing and a noble person.

When was Bible translated into arabic according to historian?
According to all scholarly sources Bible was not translted into Arabic during Prophet’s time. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics admits this:

there is no evidence of any parts of the Bible having been translated into arabic before Islam. (Hastings, James. The Encyclopedia of Rleigion and Ethics. Vol. X, p. 540)

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible attributes the first arabic translation of the Bible to the tenth century (Source: Hastings, James. Dictionary of the Bible. p. 105). However, Encyclopedia Judaica attributes the first arabic translation of the Old Testament either to Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (800-873CE) or to Saadiah b. Joseph Gaon (882-942CE) (Source: Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4, p. 863)

Paul Wegner explains that the Christian and Jewish traditions that were circulating in Arabia were oral traditions. But the Christian and Jewish groups in arabia were not orthodox at all, and there were numerous heretical groups:

The Scriptures do not seem to have been extant in an Arabic version before the time of Muhammad (570-632), who knew the gospel story only in oral form, and mainly from Syriac sources. These Syriac sources were marked by Docetism (believed that Jesus had only a divine nature and only appeared to be incarnate – they thought the material world and thus one’s body was inherently evil)… (Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. 1999. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 250)

According to New Catholic Encyclopedia:
Neither Arabian Jews not Arabian Christians, unfortunately, were to be classed among the better representatives of their faiths at the time. The former had lived in comparative isolation possibly since the middle of the 1st millenium B.C., although they had been mildly successful in proselytism and the latter were mainly heretical Monophysites, remote in every sense from the centers of Christian learning. (New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol 9, p.1001)

There are hadiths stating Waraqah Ibn Nawful translated and read New Testament in arabic. Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478 states:
“…Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. …” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)

There is no hadith stating that Waraqah Ibn Nawful translated the whole bible into arabic, including Old Testament and New Testament, which was offical and available to public. As the hadith states Waraqah translated the Gospel as much as Allah wihed him to write. He also became blind, which naturally would have prevented him from translating further. Furthermore, history dictates that his translation was for personal usage and not an official translation of the Bible accessible to the Public, therefore Prophet Muhammed getting a copy of his translation and reading it is very unlikely. He only translated fragments of the Bible, which was for his personal study. Therefore, the hadiths and history do not contradict on this issue.

Did Roman Blacksmith Teach Prophet Muhammed the Quran?
Some pagans accused Prophet Muhammed of learning the Quran from the Roman blacksmith, who lived in the outskirts of Makkah and was a Christian. Prophet used to go and watch him do his work often. However, Allah (SWT) himself refuted this claim by the use of logic:

[016:103] We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear. (Yusuf Ali Translation, Quran 16:103)

That would be like stating that a chinese immigrant, who didn’t know English well authored Shakespere’s work; which is obviously illogical. In a same banner how could a blacksmith who didn’t know arabic well have authored Quran, linguistics of which exceed excellence? Indeed, he would not have managed to even convey and explain his basic believes to the Prophet!

Did ‘Hanif’ teach Prophet Muhammed the Quran?
Hanif were the group of people at Mekkah who tried to follow religion of Abraham, and therefore believed in monotheism. Before the revelation of the Quran, Prophet Muhammed himself was a Hanif.

However, the Hanifs were not learned about Christianity and Judaism. Indeed as it is demonstrated from Sahih Hadith Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169, many of the Hanif knew no background knowedlge of Judaism and Christianity, and their religion seems contradicting to Hanifs believes. Therefore, even the Hanifs were not aware of Judo-Christian believes, so there is no possibilty or proof of them teaching Prophet Muhammed about Judo-Christian believes.

Did Priest and Rabbi teach Prophet Muhammed the Quran?
The discussions between priest and Rabbi and Prophet Muhammed took place in Madinah, however much of the Quran, specially the stories of Prophets Such as Jesus (Surah Maryam), Joseph (Surah 12) and others were revealed in Mekkah. That theory would only be worth considering if the stories of Prophet and other bible-related stories were ONLY revealed in Madinah. But the bible-related stories were revealed in Mekkah, where Prophet Muhammed did not participate in debates with priests and rabbi.

Were the occasional trips to Syria source of Prophet’s knowledge?
There are 2 recorded travel of Prophet Muhammed to Syria. One when he was 12 years old and second when he was around the age of 25.

On his journey to Syia when he was 12, he met a monk by the name of Bahira. An immediate question arises, how can a child of 12 learn the theology of different religions in such detail at a brief visit, whilst constanly accompanied by his Uncle and other traders and yet manages to remember all this information until the age of 40? This is a logical fallacy! Naturally a child at such an age cannot have enough intelligence to comprehend complex theology (in detail), and yet remember for more than 28 years.

Furthermore, Seerah (Biography of Prophet Muhammed) tells us that Prophet Muhammed was accompanied by his Uncle and many other traders, naturally they would not forsake a child in a totally different country; they would accompany him to every possible corner! This would minimise the time he has for learning complex theology.

Bahira himself believed in prophethood of Prophet Muhammed. Indeed, the invitation to entertainment itself was in honour of Prophet Muhammed. His belief in prophethood of Muhammed is described in many seerah text including in an article on http://www.musalla.org/Articles/Seerah/seerah7.htm, which reads:

Bahira said that he had seen the stones and the trees prostrating to Muhammad as Muhammad had been walking by. They only do this for a prophet of Allah. He looked at the Muhammad’s back and noticed the seal of the prophet, which was an oval shape protruding just below Muhammad’s shoulder blades. He said that this was one of the signs of a great prophet to come that was taught to them in their books.

Second journey was for trade, the story is narrated here http://www.musalla.org/Articles/Seerah/seerah7.htm:

Khadija soon sent word to Muhammad asking him if he would take a trade caravan to Syria. She would pay him a high fee, which was double that of which she had paid any other person. She also gave Muhammad the services of a young lad by the name of Maysarah who would look after him on the journey. When Muhammad reached Basra, he was shading under a tree when a Monk saw him by the name of Nestor. Nestor asked Maysarah about the person sitting under the tree; Maysarah replied that it was Muhammad. Nestor said, that person is no other than a messenger of Allah. Maysarah soon realised that he was in the company of a very special person. He said that he noticed that the heat was extreme when he saw a clear vision of two angels shading Muhammad from the heat of the day.

Main point to notice is that Prophet Muhammed was again followed closely by Maysarah, therefore he would have realised if Prophet Muhammed had been learning about Bible. And once again the monk Nestor believed in the prophethood of Prophet Muhammed. Muhammed Mohar Ali writes in his book on this topic:

Had Muhammed contacted during his trade journeys to Syria any Christian monk or layman for obtaining information or even for casual discussion, the Quraysh opponents, many of whom had accompanied him to Syria, would not have failed to make the most of it in their attack against him. That no such allegation was made by them is a decisive proof that he had not sought information about Christianity or Judaism from anyone in the course of his journey to Syria. (Sirat Al-Nabi And the Orientalists Vol. I A by Muhammed Mohar Ali, Page 266)

Did Prophet Muhammed heard Quss preach Christianity at the Ukaz fair?
In his book Sirat Al-Nabi And the Orientalists Vol. I A, Muhammed Mohar Ali writes regarding this:
It is stated that the Prophet heard Quss preach at the Ukaz fair. This tradition is unanimously classified as spurious and is rejected as such. Specially, one of its narrators, Muhammed ibn al-hallaj al-Lakhmi, is condemned as a confirmed liar (kadhdhab). And even according to this spurious report, the Prophet was only one of the audience and did not make any enquiries as such with the speaker. The oriantilists’s use of this report without any indication of its weakness and untrustworthiness is indicative of how such materials are uncritically accepted and cited to support a particular assumption. (Sirat Al-Nabi And the Orientalists Vol. I A by Muhammed Mohar Ali, page 266-267)

Did Prophet Muhammed Author Quran for Worldly Gains?
It is very evident from Seerah (biography of Prophet’s life) that Prophet Muhammed could not have authored Quran for worldly gains.

After unsuccessful attempts of Quresh (tribe of Mekkah) they could do little to prevent islam from spreading. Therefore they tried to bribe Prophet Muhammed into leaving islam. Utbah Ibn Rabiah was sent for this task. This story is narrated in a Seerah called “Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 43:

‘Nephew,’ he [Utbah] said, ‘you know your standing among us, but you have brought a matter of grave concern to your people. You have divided their community, made fun of their customs, criticised their gods and their religion and declared some of their ancestors to be unbelievers. Now, listen to me. I will make some proposals for you to examine and perhaps you will accept some of them.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Speak, Abul-Walid. I am listening.’ ‘Nephew, ‘Utbah continued, ‘if you want money by this business, we will collect some of our property and make you the wealthiest among us. If you want honour, we will make you our chief so that every decision is yours. If you want a kingdom, we will make you our king. If you are possessed by a ghost of a jinn that you cannot drive away from yourself, we will find skilful doctors to help you. We will spend our wealth on it till you are cured.’When Utbah had finished, the Messenger of Allah asked, ‘Have you finished, Abul-Walid?’
‘Yes.’
‘Then listen to me.’
‘I will,’ said Utbah. Then the Messenger of Allah recited some verses from Surah Fussilat. Utbah listened intently, putting his hands behind his back and leaning on them. When the Messenger of Allah reached the place mentioning prostration, he prostrated and then said, ‘You have heard what you have heard, Abul-Walid. It is now up to you.’ (“Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 43)

If Prophet Muhammed had been after money, women, kingdom or any other worldly desire then now would have been a perfect chance! But Prophet Muhammed chose Islam above all.
Furthermore, history dictates that Prophet’s financial status worsened after the Prophethood mission. “Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 185 narrates:

‘A’ishah has related, ‘When the Messenger of Allah died, there was nothing in the house that a creature could eat except a little barley on a shelf. (“Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 185)

Even a person considered poor by today’s standards would have had more lexuries than that. If Prophet’s intentions were to gain wealth then surely he would have had large amount of wealth and luxieries by the time of his death.

page hit counter 

What does Islam say about Bible?

December 17, 2007

One of the common and advancing tactics directed by missionaries towards Muslims is to persuade them to believe in Bible by stating that Quran states so. Muslims however believe that The Injeel (Gospel), Quran speaks of are not the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament and neither is Torah (OT) the Tawrat, Quran speaks of.

Islam on Bible
Islam is taken from 1) Quran 2) Sahih (Authentic) Hadiths. One Sahih hadith says:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:
Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah’s Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)This Hadith can be checked out here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.461

As Ibn Abbas states “…people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,'”. The hadith is very explicit and clear, it explicitly states that the Bible was altered and corrupted by the Jews and the Christians.

Some missionaries try to reconcile this by stating that the hadith could be in reference to verse 3.078 in the Quran, which states:

And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 3:78)

3:78 is talking about corruption BY TONGUE, however Ibn Abbas is referring to WRITTEN corruption i.e. changing the text of the scripture. Ibn Abbas states “…(Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and WROTE the scripture with their own hands…”. Note: the word WROTE is mentioned in the hadith, therefore that claim by missionaries is falsified. Their second rebuttal is to quote another hadith by Ibn Abbas, which appears to be in contradiction with this one, that hadith is refuted by “AK47_Mujahideen” later in the article.

Torah/Gospel is corrupted according to Quran
Verses of Quran 2:78-79 states:

“And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (YUSUF ALI Translation, Quran 2:78-79)

The context of this verse is from 2:40 to at least 2:93, the context is of Bani Israel. Quran talks about Bani Israel in great details between those verses as well as about Moses. Verse 78 states that those people (amongst Bani Israel) who know not the book (they are illiterate), but their own desires and they do nothing but spread corruption. Next verse states that woe on to them (Bani Israel as a whole as context from 2:40 to 2:93 states) who write book with their own hands and say that is from God, meaning they write their own desires yet claim that it from God thus referring to corruption of the Book!

[وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ]

The arabic word Ummi is used in 2:78, which means illiterate and not just illiterate in a sense that individual does not know the Scripture or has not read the Scripture before. Ibn Kathir writes in tafsir to 2:78

(And there are among them Ummyyun people) meaning, among the People of the Book, as Mujahid stated. Ummyyun, is plural for Ummi, that is, a person who does not write, as Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi`, Qatadah, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and others said. This meaning is clarified by Allah’s statement,

[لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَـبَ]

(Who know not the Book) meaning, are they not aware of what is in it.

Ummi was one of the descriptions of the Prophet because he was unlettered. For instance, Allah said,

[وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَـبٍ وَلاَ تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذاً لاَّرْتَـبَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ ]

(Neither did you (O Muhammad ) read any book before it (this Qur’an) nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted) (29:48).

Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=2424

Some try to use 62:2 as a rebuttal to this claim which states:

“He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones a messenger of their own, to recite unto them His revelations and to make them grow, and to teach them the Scripture and wisdom, though heretofore they were indeed in error manifest,” (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 62:2)

This verse does not refute as this is a general statement. Most of the arabs were indeed Jahil (ignorant) pre-Islam. Therefore the verse is classifying them GENERALLY as being those cannot read nor write. Alternative interpretation must be rejected because prophet Muhammed explained:

«إِنَّا أُمَّةٌ أُمِّيَّةٌ لَا نَكْتُبُ وَلَا نَحْسِبُ، الشَّهْرُ هكَذَا وَهكَذَا وَهكَذَا»

(We are an Ummi nation, neither writing nor calculating. The (lunar) month is like this, this and this (i.e. thirty or twenty-nine days.)

Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=2424

Further more, Quran itself explains meaning of Ummi in 029:048. Prophet Mohammed is called an Ummi in several verses of Quran such as 7:157-158. The meaning is explained in 29:48. Verse states:

‏29:48 وماكنت تتلو من قبله من كتاب ولاتخطه بيمينك اذا لارتاب المبطلون

[029:048] And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted. (Yusuf Ali Translation, Quran 29:48)

Some Missionaries deliberately quote Pickthall’s translation of 29:48, which states “scripture” instead of book, scripture gives the meaning of a religious book, therefore they use this as their evidence against Ummi (which means illiterate). However, arabic word used is Kitab, which means “A Book”. Therefore Prophet Muhammad was not reader/writer only of Holy Scripture but also ANY book (A book). Ibn Kathir writes on this verse:

“(Neither did you read any book before it (this Qur’an) nor did you write any book with your right hand. ) meaning, `you lived among your people for a long time before you brought this Qur’an. During this time you never read any book or wrote anything. Your people, as well as others all know that you are an unlettered man who does not read or write.’ This is how he was also described in the previous Scriptures, as Allah says:

[الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِىَّ الأُمِّىَّ الَّذِى يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِى التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَـهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ]

(Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the unlettered about whom they find written with them in the Tawrah and the Injil, — he commands them with good; and forbids them from evil.) (7:157) This is how the Messenger of Allah will remain until the Day of Resurrection, unable to write even one line or one letter. He used to have scribes who would write down the revelation for him, or would write letters from him to be sent to different places. Allah’s saying:

[إِذاً لاَّرْتَـبَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ]

(In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.) means, `if you had been literate, some ignorant people would have doubted you. They would have said that you learned this from Books inherited from the Prophets which came before.’ Indeed, they did say that, even though they knew that he was unlettered and could not read or write.”

Hence the word Ummi means someone who is illiterate, someone who cannot read nor write. It does not only refer to someone who does not know the Holy Scripture, that would be incorrect understanding of the word Ummi. In addition word “therefore” or “fawawlul” (فويل )does not mean the verse must be a continuation on the same topic, meaning the term does not mean the verse 2:79 must be referring to those in 2:78 as same words are used in 52:11 and 107:4 and the same topic is not being directly discussed.

Verses 2:78 and 2:79 speak of two categories of people (Ibn Kathir states the same in the tafsir of 2:79) with unequal amount of wickedness. 2:78 speaks of those who do not know their holy book but their corrupt desires and they do nothing but corruption. This could indeed refer to many people even of our time. The following verse 2:79 speaks of those who actually corrupted the scripture and said that is from God to fulfil their desires. One must accept this interpretation that 2:78 and 2:79 is referring to two different kinds of people, one who could read and write (those in 2:79) and the other who can’t (as in 2:78). If not then we have to re-interpret the word “illiterate” and conclude that it refers to those people who can read and write but they are illiterate in a sense that they are illiterate of the truth of the book. Whichever logical interpretation we take, it affirms that Quran states that the Bible is corrupted, as long as the correct meaning of the word Ummi is kept in mind.

Current Bible is not the Torah/Injeel
Verse 7:157 states:

“Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper.” (YUSUF ALI Translation, Quran 7:157)

7:157 الذين يتبعون الرسول النبي الامي الذي يجدونه مكتوبا عندهم في التوراة والانجيل يامرهم بالمعروف وينهاهم عن المنكر ويحل لهم الطيبات ويحرم عليهم الخبائث ويضع عنهم اصرهم والاغلال التي كانت عليهم فالذين امنوا به وعزروه ونصروه واتبعوا النور الذي انزل معه اولئك هم المفلحون

The arabic text makes use of word Al Nabi & Al Rasool (الرسول & النبي), these together makes it evident that the reference is to a True Prophet. As by definition Nabi is someone who received the revelation from Allah (SOURCE: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.NABI.html ). The verse is quite explicit in stating that the Illiterate, True Prophet is mentioned in the Tawrat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).

That illeterate Prophet is Prophet Muhammed, this is a Title given to the Prophet, as Quran states in the following verse, 7:158:

Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all – (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no Allah save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 7:158)

PICKTHAL translated the word Al-Ummi (الامي) as “who can neither read nor write” instead of “unlettered”. As Quran states Prophet Muhammed is given the title Al-Ummi, which can be cross-referenced with the previous verse 7:157.

Therefore 7:157 is stating that we find a mention of a true prophet, Prophet Muhammed, in the Injeel and Tawrat. However, no Christian or Jew will ever admit that Prophet Muhammed is prophesied in the Bible. If it’s true that Tawrat/Injeel mentions of Prophet Muhammed and it’s also true that Old Trstament and New Testament don’t then it must logically follow that Tawrat/Injeel is not the books in the Bible.

So those who state Quran acknowledges the Bible must either accept that Prophet Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible as a true Prophet or they must accept that Towrat/Injeel the Quran speaks of is not the books in the Bible and are at least in a corrupted form. Latter is the belief of Muslims. First option would result in them becoming a Muslim and thus believing in Quran anyway.

Some individuals would try to reconcile by stating that Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible but as a false prophet, such as when Jesus is referring to false prophets. However, that explanation is contrary to the Quran text as well as to the verse itself. The verse explicitly not only makes a mention of a Rasool (prophet) but also Nabi (one who received revelation from God). Therefore the verse itself emphasises that by using Nabi and Rasool together that it is in reference to a true prophet. Also the verse in examination states “So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper”. Only when a true prophet is followed can one reach prosperity, following a false prophet would result in destruction. However, the verse talks of prosperity thus making it clear that the Ummi Prophet (Prophet Muhammed) must be a true prophet.

Hence, part of the requirement becomes that the Prophet that is to be found in true Injeel (Gospel) is a TRUE prophet, who is Prophet Muhammed. So those who state Quran acknowledges the Bible must either accept that Prophet Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible as a true Prophet or they must accept that Towart/Injeel Quran speaks of is not the books in the Bible and are at least in a corrupted form

Another objection which would be posted is to raise the significance of the word “with them” or arabic “Inda hum”. They would raise objection that Quran must therefore be in reference to the current Bible since that is the book which is with them. However, this objection can be resolved by examining the context of the verses before and after 7:157. The context is related to Prophets of the past, the story of Moses and Bani Israel (Race for Moses and Jesus) starts from 7.103 and continues onto 7:166. Therefore, in their own scripture here would refer to the people of Bani Israel who were given the true Tawrat and Injeel. The verse would be in reference to descendent of Bani Israel, whom they find in their scripture Tawrat and Injeel. The context was of the verses is of Bani Israel who were the true followers of the Prophets.

Based on this verse, those who believe Bible is Injeel/Tawrat must either accept that Prophet Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible as a Nabi (True Prophet) or that Injeel/Tawrat is not the Bible.

Muslims don’t have to believe in Bible
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12 states:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:– “We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us.” (2.136)

As Prophet states we are to believe in what is revealed to us, Prophet does not say merely “believe in them (jews)”, thus indicating that muslims are not obliged to believe in the Bible. Prophet said we believe in what is revealed to us, Quran states to believe in Tawrat (original), therefore we believe in that entirely. However, we do no believe in the current bible therefore prophet did not explicitly stated “believe in them (jews)” when asked about Torah reading. In another narration it is stated that Prophet Muhammed stated, “We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you”. When prophet said we believe in whatever is revealed to us it negates the belief in current bible, and since it goes contrary to it.

Some missionaries try to reconcile and state that Prophet said that due to Jews reading the Torah in Hebrew, therefore allowing them the chance to edit the meanings. However, not only do we find no evidence for this interpretation we also find logical and historical flaws in this understanding. Let us not forget, those people did not know the content of Torah therefore were ignorant of what was in it. Thus even if the torah was read to them in Arabic, the possibility of changing the meaning would still exist. Hence it would matter not as to whether the book was in Hebrew or Arabic, since Jews can achieve their goal anyway. Furthermore, we know that many Jews, including Rabbis, reverted to Islam, therefore were fluent in Hebrew. One learned person of Torah at Prophet’s time is Abdullah bin Salam, therefore the sayings of Jews could be confirmed with such people even when they spoke in Hebrew, naturally one of the Sahabah (companion of the Prophet) could be accompanied by someone who was a Jew and is now a muslim and spoke Hebrew.

Did the Old Testament even existed in the Prophet’s time in Arabic? Hastings Dictionary of the Bible attributes the first arabic translation of the Bible to the tenth century, (Hastings, James. Dictionary of the Bible. p. 105). Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Judaica attributes the frst arabic translation of the OT either to Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (800-873CE) or to Saadiah b. Joseph Gaon (882-942CE), (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4, p. 863).

In addition Wegner, Paul D. states in his book The Journey from Texts to Translations, “The Scriptures do not seem to have been extant in an Arabic version before the time of Muhammad (570-632), who knew the gospel story only in oral form, and mainly from Syriac sources. These Syriac sources were marked by Docetism (believed that Jesus had only a divine nature and only appeared to be incarnate – they thought the material world and thus one’s body was inherently evil)…” (Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. 1999. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 250)

Therefore it gives rise to a possibility that Jews could only have read the Torah in Hebrew. There is no evidence that Prophet’s refusal to accept OT was ONLY due to them reading in hebrew. Since Prophet prohibited the belief in OT in Hebrew (orignal) why ought he to prescribe it in the translation (arabic)?

Another rebuttal brought forwards to this is a hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, i.e. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434:

“Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.

He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi'(No. 4431).” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434)

It must be noted that the hadith is referring to FORNICATION. Other similar hadiths are also in reference to fornication and adultery. Islamic and Jewish law on adultery and fornication is very similar, both religions condemns these things. Therefore when Prophet said he “believe in thee and in him who revealed thee” he could have been referring to he believes in what torah has to say on the topic of fornication and adultery and thus punishment in the torah was the one which was prescribed to the Jews for committing adultery or fornication.

It must be noted that the hadith in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12 is general and is not referring to a specific context and the prophet stated “We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us”. However Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434 is not general and is related to a context of fornication.

dan _1988 ( http://www.towardsislam.com for more of his articles)

The following part is written by AK47_Mujahideen:

Corrupting the Context and the Meaning
“Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains, and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieveth after this will go astray from a plain road. And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. And with those who say: ‘Lo! we are Christians,’ We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork. O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now hath come unto you light from Allah and plain Scripture,” S. 5:12-15 Pickthall
There were people in the People of the Book who were good people, but however, there were some who just wanted to cause fitnah and alter the text. Here is Ibn Kathir’s commentary: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Commentary of Surah Al Ma’idah 5:13; Breaking the Covenant)
[يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ]
(They change the words from their (right) places…) Since their comprehension became corrupt, they behaved treacherously with Allah’s Ayat, altering His Book from its apparent meanings which He sent down, and distorting its indications. They attributed to Allah what He did not say, and we seek refuge with Allah from such behavior.
[وَنَسُواْ حَظَّا مِّمَّا ذُكِرُواْ بِهِ]
(and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them.) by not implementing it and by ignoring it.

It’s clear from that “change words from their context” does mean altering the Book.

Did the Sahabah really believe in the Bible?
Missionaries love to quote a little portion of Ibn Kathir’s commentary to try to deceive the reader into thinking that the Sahabi believed in the Bible without quoting further on what Ibn Kathir had to say.
Here is one example:
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books, they alter and distort their apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, “The Tawrah and the Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. (Tafsir of Qur’an by Ibn Kathir; Exegesis on Surah 2:79 http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8586)

Sami Zaatari wrote a response to this in his rebuttal to Anis Shorrosh:
(who distort the Book with their tongues,) means, “They alter them (Allah’s Words).”
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books, they alter and distort their apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, “The Tawrah and the Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. Then,
[æóíóÞõæáõæäó åõæó ãöäú ÚöäÏö Çááøóåö æóãóÇ åõæó ãöäú ÚöäÏö Çááøóåö]
(they say: “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah;)
As for Allah’s Books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed.” Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.
Christians always love to quote a small part of this section in which it says:
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books
They always quote that part but never the rest, why don’t they ever quote the rest? The fact is this statement that non can change Allah’s words in his books is referring to the ORIGINALS. The Originals! However so they can make copies and write books with their own hands and ADD things to it, this is not the OIRIGINAL book but their own invention with their hands. Note what the tafsir says:
However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves

So they made their own books up, they copied a lot from the ORIGINAL book and with that they added their own interpretation and lies! Non can corrupt Allah’s original books, they can make copies and write with their own hands, that’s how the corruption occurs. The tafsir then summarizes the Muslim position back then and now when it states:

However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation

How more obvious does it get???????? This shows that the Muslims back then did view the Bible as corrupt, and gave an example of the arabic Bible to show how corrupt it is, they were not limiting the corruption to the arabic text only, they were referring to the Bible as a whole. So this summarizes the Muslim position. The ORIGINAL BOOKS which Allah sent cannot be corrupted, THE ORIGINAL ONES in the hands of Jesus and Moses. However so people could make copies, they could copy it down and with that they could write their own lies to it which is what they did.
The Muslims must believe in the previous scriptures (Tawrat, Zabur, Injeel), The Qur’an says the God’s words cannot be changed, therefore…. The Muslims have to believe in the Bible?
Answer is no. You can refer to Munir Munshey’s rebuttal to Khaled regarding this subject. ()

Are we really supposed to follow the previous scripture?
“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.” S. 10:94

Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: “I believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. S. 42:15

Those are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. But if these disbelieve therein, then indeed We shall entrust it to a people who will not be disbelievers therein. Those are they whom Allah guideth, SO FOLLOW THEIR GUIDANCE. Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee for it. Lo! it is naught but a Reminder to (His) creatures. S. 6:89-90

Those verses is not commanding us to follow the previous scripture. These verses only refer to the Prophet. It’s really clear from the verses itself, and there are many verses from the Qur’an that only refer to the Prophet.
Here is qurtubi’s tafsir on this [Thanks to Abu Hamzeh on paltalk]
ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÃÚáì, ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ËæÑ, Úä ãÚãÑ, Úä ÞÊÇÏÉ: ÝÅäú ßõäúÊó Ýöí Ôóßø ãöãøÇ ÃäúÒóáúäÇ Åáóíúßó ÝÇÓúÆóáö ÇáøÐöíäó íóÞúÑóÁõæäó ÇáßÊÇÈó ãöäú ÞóÈúáößó ÞÇá: ÈáÛäÇ Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÞÇá: «áÇ ÃÔõßø æáÇ ÃÓÃóáõ».
Jalalayn
{ فَإِن كُنتَ فِي شَكٍّ مِّمَّآ أَنزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكَ فَاسْأَلِ ?لَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ ?لْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكَ لَقَدْ جَآءَكَ ?لْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ?لْمُمْتَرِينَ }

So, if you, O Muhammad (s), are in doubt concerning what We have revealed to you, of stories – hypothetically speaking – then question those who read the Scripture, the Torah, before you, for it is confirmed [therein] with them and they can inform you of its truth. The Prophet (s) said, ‘I have no doubt, nor will I question’. Verily the Truth from your Lord has come to you; so do not be of the waverers, [of] those who have doubts about it.
I think this refutes the argument.

Jesus was taught the Torah by Allah!
“He said: ‘Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a matter He but sayth o it ‘Be,’ and it is! And Allah (God) will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah (Law) and the Gospel,” (3:47-48).
This whole business about Jesus has memorised the Torah doesn’t mean the Torah at the time was uncurrupt. Allah taught him the Torah.

Here is a speach by Yahya Ibrahim called Jesus was saved by Allah from the cross:
From about 8:00 through the lecture–
Isa ibn Maryam was born and had the ability to read and write. And we gave you wisdom, and the wasted stories from the Jews and Christians . And he would teach them their books. At the Age of 5 he was old .– the Torah-and we gave you the Torah… He was born having memorised the whole Torah as a sign to mankind…. THIS IS A PROPHET FROM ALLAH! And we revealed to you the Gospel so you will correct from the misguidance that has entered into the books of the Jews. And now Allah described the blessing that he gave him physically… And we gave you the ability with our permission.

statistics