Responding to one Muslim writers denials
Sam Shamoun & Jochen Katz
The Quran commands the Muslims to tell Jews and Christians that they believe in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures:
Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered.' S. 29:46 Arberry
The reader can clearly seeing that the foregoing verse is making it obligatory for Muslims to believe in the Holy Bible since that is the revelation which the Jews and Christians possess.
One particular Muslim, however, doesnt think that this is what this citation is saying. Mr. Ebrahim Saifuddin writes:
This verse is often quoted by the Christians to prove that the Quran teaches that the Bible is uncorrupted. When we read this verse we see that Allah (swt) tells us to say that we believe in the revelation which has come to the People of the Book. As stated before, it is an article of faith for a Muslim to believe that the Torah, Zabur and Injeel are Books revealed onto the respective prophets (pbut) but no where does this verse say that we believe in what the Christians and the Jews possessed at that time[sic]. It is a general statement that a Muslim is to believe that Torah, Zabur and Injeel were revealed by Allah (swt). (Saifuddin, Refuting Christian Claim that Quran testifies the Bible to be Uncorrupted; source)
It is apparent that the writer doesnt want to come to terms with what the passage is actually stating. The reference is addressing Muhammads contemporaries and plainly telling them that Muslims believe in what was revealed or sent down to them. Note that particular portion of the verse carefully as we cite it from various translations:
and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you Pickthall
but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you Y. Ali
and say: "We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you Muhammad Asad
The foregoing is quite clear in order for the Quran to command Muslims to tell the People of the Book that they believe in the revelations sent down to them such as the Torah, Zabur (Psalms), and the Injil (Gospel) these revelations must have been accessible and available during that time. After all, just as the Muslims had access to that which was supposedly sent down to them Jews and Christians must have also had access to their revelations, otherwise the command is meaningless and the parallel is lost.
To further illustrate this point picture the following scenario: Imagine a Jew or Christian telling a Muslim, "We believe in the revelation which came down to us and which came down to you." How would a Muslim understand that statement? Better yet, how would Mr. Saifuddin understand it? Wouldnt he, and any other Muslim for that matter, assume that what the Jew or Christian meant is that s/he believes that the Quran which the Muslims possess is the word of God? Would s/he think for a minute that what they really were saying is that they only believe in the original, uncorrupt version of the Quran, not the current version in his/her possession?
With this in mind, isnt it patently obvious that when the Quran commands Muslims to tell the Jews and Christians that they believe the revelation which came down to the People of the Book that this means that the Muslims are being told to believe that the Bible, which is what the Jews and Christians possess, is the revealed Word of God? At least, this is how a Jew or Christian would understand such a statement.
As if this wasnt clear enough, there are specific texts which claim that the previous Scriptures were still extant during Muhammads time:
"They say, 'Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?' Has there not come to them the clear sign of what IS in the former scrolls?" S. 20:133 Arberry
A commentary attributed Ibn Abbas explains that:
(And they say) i.e. the people of Mecca: (If only he would bring us) why does not Muhammad bring us (a miracle) a sign (from his Lord! Hath there not come unto them the proof) the exposition (of what is in the former Scriptures) what IS in the Torah and the Gospel for they contained the attributes and description of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn Abbâs; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Truly it IS in the Scriptures of the ancients. Was it not a sign for them, that it is known to the learned of the Children of Israel? S. 26:196-197 Arberry
The same commentary of Ibn Abbas states:
And truly it, the allusion to the Qur'an [that would be] revealed to Muhammad (s), IS in the Scriptures, the Books, of the ancients, such as the Torah and the Gospel. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)
There are other verses which even say that the Quran confirms these Scriptures in its hands, i.e. those Books which the Jews and Christians possessed at the time of Muhammad:
It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a confirmation of what is BETWEEN ITS HANDS (tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi) and a distinct explanation of all things and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe. S. 12:111 our translation
And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a confirmation of that which is BETWEEN ITS HANDS (tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi) and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds. S. 10:37 our translation
And that which We have revealed to you of the Book, that is the truth confirming that which is BETWEEN ITS HANDS (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi); most surely with respect to His servants Allah is Aware, Seeing. S. 35:31 our translation
With the foregoing texts in mind doesnt this make it even more obvious that Q. 29:46 is commanding the Muslims to affirm the authority and authenticity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures that were available at that time, Books which are virtually identical to what we possess today?
The Muslim writer thinks he has a response to our use of the above citations. For example, here is his explanation of Q. 35:31:
This is another verse quoted by the Christian missionaries a lot. However we see that this verse again does not state that the Bible in the hands of the Jews and the Christians of that time was in its pristine form. What the Quran states is that it is confirming that which was revealed before not the Bible that they hold but confirming only that which was revealed before it by Allah (swt). Hence do note that the Quran is speaking of only confirming that which was revealed before by Allah (swt) and it is not confirming the corrupted part of the Bible.
So how does the Quran confirm what was revealed before? It does so simply by stating or repeating that what was revealed to the concerned prophets and correcting that which has been corrupted. For example, in the story of the Original Sin as seen in the Bible, the blame is put on the woman and not the man. The Quran however corrects this mistake and says that both of them are equally responsible.
And in regard to Q. 12:111 he states:
Notice again in this verse of the Quran, the message that what the Jews and Christians of those times read is uncorrupted, is simply missing. The name of the Surah in which this verse exists is Surah Yusuf (Joseph) and it mainly deals with the stories of the past. Now notice the Quran stats[sic] that in the stories of the prophets (pbut), there is an instruction. It states that it is a confirmation of what was before it. How is the Quran confirming? Using what methodology? The methodology of narrating the stories in their pristine forms and informing the People of the Book that this is how the story went and this is what was revealed. So whatever is true in the Bible is confirmed and whatever is not is automatically corrected. This is the simple methodology used by Allah (swt). He simply repeats the events as they occurred thus confirming the truth in the Bible and correcting the errors. The Quran never states that it is confirming the Bible which the Christians read. It is stating over and over again that it is only confirming that which was revealed before by Allah (swt) only that part.
Mr. Saifuddins assertions are brimming with errors which all need to be addressed. His first error is to assume that Allah is the true God and that the true God therefore authored the Quran. The evidence conclusively shows that such is not the case since the Allah of Islam is not God and the Quran is not the word of the one true God (1, 2, 3).
Secondly, his comments show that he is arguing on the basis of what the English version says as opposed to examining the actual Arabic text. As we saw above, the Arabic doesnt simply say that the Quran verifies the books that came before it but confirms that which is between its(his) hands, i.e. the Muslim scripture is bearing witness that the Scriptures which the Jews and Christians had in their possession at the time the Quran was being composed is the pure revelation of God. Since the only Scriptures which the Jews and Christians have possessed happen to be the very Books found in our Bibles today this basically establishes the fact that the Quran does indeed testify that the Holy Bible is the preserved Word of God.
Third, the author erroneously assumes that since the Muslim scripture repeats or narrates a specific biblical story differently this somehow proves that the Quran is admitting that the biblical texts have been corrupted. He fails to note that the reason why the Quran narrates a specific biblical episode is not because it is trying to allegedly restore the pristine form of the event but to provide the Arabs with an Arabic translation of these biblical narratives:
Then We gave Moses the Book, complete for him who does good, and distinguishing every thing, and as a guidance and a mercy; haply they would believe in the encounter with their Lord. This is a Book We have sent down, blessed; so follow it, and be godfearing; haply so you will find mercy; lest you should say, 'The Book was sent down only upon two parties before us, and we have indeed been heedless of their study'; or lest you say, 'If the Book had been sent down upon us, we had surely been more rightly guided than they.' Yet indeed a clear sign has come to you from your Lord, and a guidance and a mercy; and who does greater evil than he who cries lies to God's signs, and turns away from them? We shall surely recompense those who turn away from Our signs with an evil chastisement for their turning away. S. 6:154-157 Arberry
Yet before it was the Book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and this is a Book CONFIRMING, IN ARABIC TONGUE, to warn the evildoers, and good tidings to the good-doers. S. 46:12 Arberry
They said, "Our people, we have heard a Book that was sent down after Moses, confirming what is BETWEEN ITS HANDS (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi), guiding to the truth and to a straight path." S. 46:30 our translation
Note, once again, that the function of the Quran is to confirm (in Arabic) the Mosaic Scripture that was in its hands, i.e. the Torah that was extant at the time Muhammad was composing his book. It doesnt say that it came to correct the Books which were in the hands of the Jews and Christians, but to verify them and to provide the Arabs with an Arabic version of these inspired Scriptures. In fact, the Quran uses the word "confirming" over a dozen times when speaking about the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians (*). It does not once use the word "correcting". Interpreting confirming as meaning correcting is corrupting its plain meaning.
Yet the problem is that the Quran fails to accomplish its intended purpose since it often garbles up and distorts the biblical stories, a fact which Mr. Saifuddin is all too aware of and explains why he tries so hard to deny the obvious and plain meaning of the Quranic witness to the authenticity of the Holy Bible. More on the plain meaning of the Quran later.
Mr. Saifuddins other mistakes are to argue from silence and to make a hasty generalization. He claims that the Quran blames both Adam and Eve for eating from the forbidden fruit unlike the Bible which only blames the woman. His misreading of both the Quran and the Holy Bible leads him to then erroneously assume that the Muslim scripture is correcting the Biblical version of this story.
In the first place, the Holy Bible never places the blame upon the woman alone, but holds both the man and the woman equally responsible (cf. Genesis 3:8-24).
In fact, specific passages single out Adam as the one responsible for plunging man into sin without once mentioning Eves role:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:12-19
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him." 1 Corinthians 15:20-23
More importantly, Mr. Saifuddin conveniently forgot to inform his readers that the Quran fails to mention Eve by name and that it never explicitly narrates how she was created. Noted Muslim scholar Mahmoud M. Ayoub, while commenting on Q. 2:30-38, admits this when he says:
The story of Adam (30-38) is told in earlier surahs belonging to the later Meccan period. His creation, the obeisance of the angels to him, his dwelling in the garden and subsequent expulsion are all told in some detail. These verses may be seen as a commentary on an already well-known story, because they raise new issues and because they are placed before other and more explicit verses. These nine verses have raised many questions and controversies: Why did God tell the angels of His plan to establish a representative for Himself on the earth? How did the angels know that Adam's progeny would act wickedly? How could they question the will and wisdom of God? How was this vicegerent of God created and why did he soon disobey God's command against eating the forbidden fruit? What sort of fruit did the forbidden tree bear? Who was Satan and how was he able to enter the garden in order to lead the innocent Adam and his spouse astray? Adam's stay in Paradise, the creation of a mate for him, and their sin and expulsion are but briefly mentioned in the Qur'an. The Qur'an leaves many other questions UNANSWERED. It does not, for example, mention Eve by name, or the manner in which she was created. For the answers to these and other questions, commentators HAD TO RESORT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK (Ayoub, The Qur'an and Its Interpreters - Volume 1 [State University of New York Press, Albany 1984], p. 73; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Ayoub makes the candid admission that the Qurans failure to adequately address these issues led the commentators to turn to the Holy Bible for the answers, the very same Book which the Quran came to correct according to Mr. Saifuddin!
Yet these scholars didnt merely quote the Holy Bible to fill in the gaps within the Qurans version of the events, they actually went above and beyond what the biblical text actually says. Here is a case in point:
According to Yunus - Ibn Wahb - Ibn Zayd (commenting on God's word: "And he whispered"): Satan whispered to Eve about the tree and succeeded in taking her to it; then he made it seem good to Adam. He continued. When Adam felt a need for her and called her, she said: No! unless you go there. When he went, she said again: No! unless you eat from this tree. He continued. They both ate from it, and their secret parts became apparent to them. He continued. Adam then went about in Paradise in flight. His Lord called out to him: Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You. When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, my Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I ALSO MAKE HER STUPID, although I had created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy and birth with difficulty, although I made it easy for her to be pregnant and give birth. Ibn Zayd said: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world would not menstruate, AND THEY WOULD BE INTELLIGENT and, when pregnant, give birth easily. (The History of Al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, translated by Franz Rosenthal [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1989], Volume I, pp. 280-281; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Ibn Zayds claim that Allah punished women for Eves sin by making them stupid seems to be based on the teaching of the Quran that women are inferior in intelligence to men since the testimony of one man is equivalent to that of two women:
O believers, when you contract a debt one upon another for a stated term, write it down, and let a writer write it down between you justly, and let not any writer refuse to write it down, as God has taught him; so let him write, and let the debtor dictate, and let him fear God his Lord and not diminish aught of it. And if the debtor be a fool, or weak, or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate justly. And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man AND TWO WOMEN, such witnesses as you approve of, THAT IF ONE OF THE TWO WOMEN ERRS THE OTHER WILL REMIND HER; and let the witnesses not refuse, whenever they are summoned. And be not loth to write it down, whether it be small or great, with its term; that is more equitable in God's sight, more upright for testimony, and likelier that you will not be in doubt. Unless it be merchandise present that you give and take between you; then it shall be no fault in you if you do not write it down. And take witnesses when you are trafficking one with another. And let not either writer or witness be pressed; or if you do, that is ungodliness in you. And fear God; God teaches you, and God has knowledge of everything. S. 2:282 Arberry
Moreover, when it comes to inheritance a man receives a portion equal to two women, a clear indication of womans inferiority:
Allah commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal TO THAT OF TWO FEMALES S. 4:11 Hilali-Khan
Lest the Muslim writer accuses of us distorting the meaning of the foregoing passages, here is how his own prophet understood and applied these Quranic texts:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that THE MAJORITY of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion THAN YOU. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WOMEN EQUAL TO THE WITNESS OF ONE MAN?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301; see also Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541)
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCY OF A WOMANS MIND." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826)
Notice how Muhammad implicitly makes reference to Q. 2:282 regarding the testimony of two women being equivalent to one man to prove that women are intellectually inferior to men.
With the foregoing in mind we would like to challenge Mr. Saifuddin to produce a single biblical reference which says that God made women stupid as a result of Eves disobedience, or that men are intellectually superior to women.
The Muslim writer further said in reference to Q. 29:46:
Moreover as one can see, in the beginning of the verse, Allah (swt) encourages us to debate and have dialogue with the People of the Book. Now if the Quran was testifying that the Books which they have at that point in time were in their pure form and that they were on the right path then why would the Muslims be encouraged to have a dialogue and debate with the People of the Book? Obviously the dialogue was to help them realize the wrong which they were doing so that they could come onto the right path. The path as prescribed by Allah (swt). The path one can walk on only by accepting the uncorrupted Book The Quran.
Here, Mr. Saifuddin is committing a non-sequitur seeing that his point does not follow from what is stated in Q. 29:46. For example, the Bahai and the Ahmadiyya both accept the Quran as uncorrupted revelation of Allah, but also believe in and follow the teachings of Bahaullah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad respectively. Yet traditional Muslims reject these religious leaders and their teaching. Despite the fact that the members of these movements fully accept the integrity of the Quran there is plenty of disagreement, discussion and debate between Muslims and Bahais as well as Sunni Muslims and Ahmadiyya Muslims. In fact, there is plenty of debate between Sunni and Shia Muslims without any necessity to assume that the scripture of the other group is therefore corrupted. The discussion is usually not about the validity of the text, but about the meaning of the text.
Just as one essential topic of dispute between Muslims and Bahais or Ahmadiyyas is the question of whether or not God sent their founders, so one essential topic for discussion between Muslims and Christians is the question of whether or not Muhammad is a genuine prophet of God. Just as a discussion about the validity of Bahaullah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad does not imply the corruption of the Quran, so a discussion of the prophethood of Muhammad does not imply the corruption of the Bible either. This is only one topic that is important to discuss and there are many more. The reference to dispute between Muslims and Christians does not logically imply that the Quran teaches the corruption of the Bible.
Moreover, note that Q. 29:46 doesnt command Muslims to dispute with Christians regarding the text of the Bible as Saifuddin apparently assumes. On the contrary, it says "Dispute NOT , except with good manners", i.e. dont initiate dispute, but if dispute should arise then behave yourself in that dispute by showing good manners. The topic of Q. 29:46 is the behavior of the Muslims, not the authenticity of the Bible. Only in the second part of the verse does the content of the revelation come into focus. What does it command the Muslims to say? Call into question the Scripture of the Christians? Tell them that their Book is corrupted? On the contrary, it commands them to profess, "We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you". There is not the slightest hint of disapproval regarding the Bible in these words. In fact, the formulation is absolutely parallel. If "we believe in what has been sent down to you" means that they believe only in what ORIGINALLY was sent down to the Christians but not in the currently available book which is corrupted, then what does "we believe what has been sent down to us" mean? Does it not have to mean the same, i.e. Muslims should only believe in an original Quran but not in the currently available version of it because that is corrupted? Again, the formulation of the statement is exactly the same in both parts, and there is no justification to interpret the second part different from the first.
The author has also confused two issues, the purity of the biblical texts and the fidelity of the People of the Book to their texts. What the Qurans exhortation to dialogue with the Jews and Christians implies is not that the Bible has been corrupted but that the author of the Quran wanted the People of the Book to believe in Muhammad and his scripture.
Presumably, the author of the Quran thought that by fully embracing the teachings of the Bible the Jews and Christians would then be persuaded to believe that the Muslim scripture is a revelation from the same God who inspired their Books. S/he seemed to believe that the Quran was in complete agreement with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures on key essential doctrines such as the nature of God, the Person and work of Christ, the doctrine of salvation, the afterlife etc. Yet s/he was dead wrong and didnt realize that by following the Bible the Jews and Christians would be forced to reject Muhammad as a false prophet and the Muslim scripture as a false book.
The final point we would like to make is that the Quran claims to be a perspicuous or clear book:
O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Apostle, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from God a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, - S. 5:15 Y. Ali
A. L. R. These are the Ayats of Revelation, - of a Qur'an that makes things clear. S. 15:1 Y. Ali
We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear: S. 36:69 Y. Ali
By the Book that makes things clear, - We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). S. 43:2-3 Y. Ali
By the Book that makes things clear; - S. 44:2 Y. Ali
Which suggests that the Muslim scripture will communicate its point clearly and effectively, enabling the readers to understand its message. The passage of Q. 29:46 unambiguously says that Muslims are to believe in the revelations sent down to the Jews and Christians, which an unbiased reader (one who hasnt been programmed to believe that the Quran teaches that the Holy Bible has been corrupted) would naturally take to mean that Muslims must believe in the authority of the Bible. Yet Mr. Saifuddin wants his readers to believe that this is not what the text is saying, even though this is the plain and obvious meaning of the passage.
Is he therefore suggesting that the Quran is incapable of communicating its message effectively, that it is not as eloquent as it purports to be? Does he wish to argue that the Quran fails to deliver its point clearly leaving it up to Muslims to explain what it is really trying to communicate? Since this is basically what his comments imply he is clearly at odds with what his scripture claims for itself.
Putting it another way, if the Quran really wanted to say that the Holy Bible is not the pure Word of God or that the Pentateuch and the Gospels which are contained therein are not the original revelations given to Moses and Jesus then it could have clearly done so by simply coming out and explicitly saying that they are not. Unfortunately for Mr. Saifuddin, this is not what his scripture says. What it does say actually proves the exact opposite, namely, the author of the Quran believed that the Holy Bible which was(is) in the possession of the Jews and Christians at his/her time was(is) the preserved Word of God and the standard by which to judge the Muslim scripture:
So, if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask those who recite the Book before thee. The truth has come to thee from thy Lord; so be not of the doubters, S. 10:94 Arberry
We conclude by reminding Mr. Saifuddin of the following warning:
Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our apostles: but soon shall they know, - When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along - In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned; S. 40:70-72
Mr. Saifuddin needs to be extremely careful of his salvation since his criticism of the Holy Bible is basically a denial of the revelations God gave to his blessed apostles, a position which will land him in hell. Instead of attacking Gods true Word he needs to embrace its message of hope by turning to Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior:
"Jesus said to her, Your brother will rise again. Martha answered, I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this? Yes, Lord, she told him, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world." John 11:23-27
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
"That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10:9-10
To see our response to Mr. Saifuddins explanation of what it means that the Quran confirms the previous Scriptures please consult the following article: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q1_7.htm
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page