with the accessibility of ancient manuscripts, has now established the fact that many alterations were made in it; it is over thirteen hundred years since the Holy Qur’ān charged the followers of the Bible with altering its text, and that at a time when nobody knew that such alterations had been made in its text. Only one quotation may be given in this connection: “Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the word of Allāh, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this) … Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say, This is from Allāh; so that they may take for it a small price!” (2:75-79).10 Hence it should be borne in mind that though the Holy Qur’ān speaks again and again of “verifying” what is before it, yet it does not and cannot mean that there have been no alterations in them. On the other hand, it condemns many of the doctrines taught by the followers of the earlier scriptures, and this shows that while their origin is admitted to be Divine, it is at the same time pointed out that these books have not come down in their original purity, and that the truth revealed in them has been mixed up with errors due to alterations effected by human hands.
In almost every great religion, Divine revelation is considered to be the particular experience of a particular race or nation, and even in that nation the door to revelation is looked upon as having been closed after some great personage or after a certain time. But Islām, while making revelation the universal experience of humanity, also considers its doors as standing open for all time. There is an erroneous idea in some minds that, in Islām, the door to revelation was closed with Holy Prophet Muḥammad, because it is stated in the Holy Qur’ān that he is the last of the prophets. Why there shall be no prophet after him will be discussed in the next chapter, but it is an error to confuse the discontinuance of prophethood with the discontinuation of revelation. It has been shown that of the three kinds of revelation, two are common to both prophets and those who are not prophets, while only one form of revelation, the highest, in which the angel Gabriel is sent with a message in words, is peculiar to the prophets; and therefore when it is said that no prophet shall
10 The following examples of alterations in some of the Old and New Testament books are taken from a Christian commentator on the Bible. Regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch which has generally been ascribed to Moses, he says: “On close examination, however, it must be admitted that the Pentateuch reveals many features inconsistent with the traditional view that in its present form it is the work of Moses. For instance, it may be safely granted that Moses did not write the account of his own death in Dt. 34 … In Gn. 14:14 and Dt. 34 mention is made of Dan; but the territory did not receive that name till it was conquered by the Danites, long after the death of Moses (Josh 19:47; Jg. 18:29). Again, in Nu. 21:14, 15 there is quoted as an ancient authority ‘the book of the Wars of the Lord’, which plainly could not have been earlier than the days of Moses. Other passages which can with difficulty be ascribed to him are Ex. 6:26, 27; 11: 3; 16: 35,36; Lv. 18:24-28; Nu. 12:3; Dt. 2:12” (Dm. P. xxv). And again: “A careful examination has led many scholars to the conviction that the writings of Moses formed only the rough material or part of the material, and that in its present form it is not the work of one man, but a compilation made from previously existing documents” (ibid., p. xxvi).
How true are the words of the Holy Qur’ān, uttered 1300 years ago: “Who write the book with their hands, then say, This is from Allāh”.
The case of other books of the Bible is no better. Even the Gospels are admitted to have been altered. The original Gospel of Jesus Christ is nowhere to be found. But even the authenticity of the authorship of St. Matthew and the others is doubtful. As Dummelow says, “Direct authorship of this Gospel by the apostle Matthew is improbable” (Dm. P. 620). As regards Mark, he says: “Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses (i.e., 16:9-20) are not by St. Mark“ (ibid., p. 732). The explanation as to how these verses found a place here is very interesting. It is stated that the Gospel of Mark, being the first authoritative account of the life of Jesus, gained a good circulation at first; but, later on, Matthew and Luke became more popular, and Mark was, so to say, put in the shade. “When at the close of the apostolic age an attempt was made (probably in Rome) to collect the authentic memorials of the Apostles and their companions, a copy of the neglected Second Gospel was not easily found. The one that was actually discovered, and was used to multiply copies, had lost its last leaf, and so a fitting termination (the present appendix) was added by another hand” (Dm. P. 733). Many other examples of changes made in the text can be quoted, but one more would suffice. Commenting on the well-known confession of Christ, “Why callest thou me good,” (Mk. 10:18) Dummelow says that in the Revised Version of Matthew, Christ’s reply is: “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good”: and adds: “The author of Matthew … altered the text slightly, to prevent the reader from supposing that Christ denied that He was good” (ibid., p. 730).