Is the God of the Bible the same as the god of the Qur'an?

On Saturday November 17 I engaged in a dialogue / debate with Imam Farhan Iqbal at the Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque in Maple, Ontario, Canada. The subject was "Is the God the Bible the same as the god of the Qur'an?' This is the Q & A portion which also includes the final concluding remarks from myself and Imam Farhan Iqbal. I am hoping to post the opening statements which includes the power points soon. The recording was a bit of a disappointment as parts of it was a bit garbled and there was an echo in the background. To regular visitors to this blog, the Ahmaddiya Muslims are the group that Nabeel Qureshi was part of before he came to faith in Christ.

Debate: What Does the Qur'an and the Islamic Traditions Say About the Bible? (Luis Dizon vs. Ijaz Ahmad)

On August 13, 2016 there was a debate held in Toronto, Canada between Luis Dizon of Nicene International Ministries, and Ijaz Ahmad of Calling Christians. The debate topic was on what the Qur'an and the Islamic Traditions say about the Bible. Does the Qu'ran and other Islamic texts charge the Jews and Christians with corruption of the text of the Bible (tahrif al-nass), or with corrupting the meaning of the biblical texts (tahrif al-mana)? Luis Dizon is a former seminary student of mine and a brilliant individual. He has learned the Arabic language and can read and recite the Qur'an in Arabic. Luis has also debated Shabir Ally, who incidentally also taught Arabic to Luis. I believe Luis is and will be an effective apologist in outreach to Muslims. Please pray for Luis. The audio quality is not the best at times, but this is the only video available that addresses this debate topic. For Luis' article on 'Muslim Writers on Tahrif [Corruption]' see here.

**UPDATE: An improved version of this debate with better sound quality has just been posted. You can access the improved video below.

David Wood vs. Shabir Ally: "What Is the Quran's View of the Christian Scriptures?"

Most Muslims are convinced that, according to the Quran, Jews and Christians corrupted the Torah and the Gospel. But is this what the Quran really teaches? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally discuss the Quran's claims about the Bible.

 

How Does A Muslim Concept of Scriptural Revelation Differ From A Christian Concept?

From time to time, I have had Muslims request to do a debate on the topic of "Which is the word of God -- the Qur'an or the Bible?" I have consistently turned down this topic for at least two very good reasons. The first is that the topic is too broad and unfocused for a single debate. The second is that Christians and Muslims have a very different understanding of what it means to be "the word of God". In such a discussion, therefore, the Christian and Muslim is likely to be talking past one another.

In Islam, the Qur'an is believed to be inscribed in a Tablet in Paradise (Surah 85:22). It was literally dictated to Muhammad over a 23 year time period by the angel Gabriel. In stark contrast, Christians do not subscribe to a dictation theory -- at least for the majority of the Bible. Rather, the Christian understands the Scriptures to be God-breathed (theopneustos, in Greek) (2 Timothy 3:16-17). As 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,

"...no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

The Bible was written over a timescale of roughly 1500 years, by as many as between 30 and 40 different authors. The nature of divine inspiration is such that the stylistic characteristics of the individual authors has been preserved, but nonetheless the Spirit of God has driven them to write the Scriptures that God willed that we should possess.

Some parts of Scripture do record the exact words of God. For example, the book of Malachi is entirely a report of the words of God as He speaks in judgement against the priests of Israel.

I spoke about this fundamental difference one time on ABN Sat's Trinity Channel. Wrenching my words out of context, internet Muslim polemicist Ijaz Ahmad (of the website "Calling Christians") put together a short video claiming that "Jonathan McLatchie rejects the Bible." Here it is below:


It was obvious from the context from which this clip was excerpted that I was talking about how Muslims and Christians have a rather different concept of Scripture and revelation. I was making the point that Christians do not understand the Bible as a whole to be literally the inscribed word of God in the way that Muslims do with respect to the Qur'an. This, however, didn't stop Ijaz from excerpting a clip and dishonestly entitling it "Jonathan McLatchie rejects the Bible". In the video, Ijaz also quoted Exodus 24:12 and 31:18, in which we are told that the ten commandments are inscribed by the finger of God. Ijaz claimed that I had thus made "a fundamental mistake about the Bible's Scriptural nature." I wondered whether Ijaz thought that Christians believed God to have inscribed the entire Bible on those tablets. I and others pointed out his error when the video first came out last September. But I note that Ijaz, as recently as January 14th on his blog, claimed that I "didn’t know God literally inscribed the ten commandments according to Exodus," linking to this video.

It seems that, often in Muslim polemical circles, there is little if any concept of being charitable in your interpretation of other's words. It is disappointing.

A Simple Reason Why The Qur'an Cannot Be The Word of God

The Islamic religion claims that the Qur’an, revealed allegedly by the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad beginning in 610 A.D., is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Such an assertion, however, is highly problematic, and many, many arguments could be given to convincingly refute it. In this article, I am going to offer one of those reasons, which I perceive to be the most damning. My argument here can be summarized in syllogistic form as follows:

Debate: Is the Bible a Book of Peace? (David Wood vs. Shabir Ally)

Is the Bible a book of peace? Christians point to Jesus' commands to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" to prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. However, the Bible also contains reports of Joshua invading the land of Canaan, Saul fighting the Amalekites, etc. So what's the Biblical position on peace and violence? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally examine the texts to get to the truth.

Four Bible Verses Every Muslim Needs to Know

The Qur'an affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Christian scriptures (click here to see how). Hence, Muslims who take the Qur'an seriously should also take the Bible seriously.

Here's a short video about four Bible verses every Muslim needs to know.

The Qur'an, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma

The Qur'an affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Christian scriptures (including the Torah and the Gospel). Yet the Qur'an contradicts the Christian scriptures on fundamental doctrines (e.g., Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity). By affirming scriptures that contradict Islam, the Quran self-destructs.

The Uncorrupted Injeel

On a recent outing in London Paul Williams, who was recently outed himself (in more ways than one, see here and here), discovered something that outs Islamic apologists like Bassam Zawadi, not to mention many others.

According to PW, world-renowned Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem confirmed for him in a phone conversation one of the two claims that Christians often make regarding the Bible. In the view of Professor Haleem, the Qur’an does NOT teach that the Bible was corrupted. Instead, it teaches that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Prof. Haleem’s statements in this connection, as PW says, “put Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi (who has argued many times for the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption) in the wrong.” This, as PW also says, serves to “vindicate the oft-stated views of Sam Shamoun and David Wood.”

To PW’s relief, Professor Haleem went on to say that the Injeel is not the same as the four canonical gospels or the New Testament, and that the former was “largely lost to history” while the latter contains only “a few shreds of Jesus’ authentic teaching.’” For whatever reason, and I can think of one that is more than plausible but best left unspoken, PW still hates the Bible but wants to leave room for the Qur’an to still be true in its theological and historical pronouncements, even though he finds the ethical and religious injunctions of the Qur’an impossibly hard to follow (contrary to its own empty-boast about being light and easy, Q. 2:185ff, 7:157, et. al).

As is often the case, PW’s relief on this score proves to be very temporary. For if we follow out this reasoning, it would have to mean that the Quran mentions two different books: the Bible (i.e. the canonical Gospels, the New Testament) and the Injeel (i.e. the original message given to Jesus). Furthermore, it would also mean: 1) when the Qur’an speaks of Christians misinterpreting the Bible at the time of Muhammad, it is not talking about the Injeel, for the Injeel was “largely lost to history”; and 2) when the Qur’an speaks of the Injeel being largely lost to history, it is not talking about the Bible that Christians had in their possession at the time of Muhammad, because they certainly must have had the Bible in their possession in order to (allegedly) misinterpret it.

The problem with saying that the Bible and the Injeel are two different books – one of which existed at the time of Jesus but was lost before Muhammad’s time, the other of which existed at the time of Muhammad but was being misinterpreted – is that the Qur’an does not mention these two different books. Anywhere. This idea is totally foreign to the Qur’an. It nowhere says that Christians have a book that is different than what was given to Jesus, and it nowhere says that the book given to Jesus is different than the book in the possession of Christians.

Worse than the above, not only does the Qur’an not make such a distinction, it actually contradicts it. To give just one example, the Qur’an says that Christians can find Muhammad in the (Torah and the) Injeel.

Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom THEY FIND mentioned in their own (scriptures), - in the law and the Gospel [i.e. Injeel]; - 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. (Q. 7:157, Yusuf Ali)

If Christians did not have the Injeel at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an is wrong when it claims that they could find Muhammad in it. And if Christians (allegedly) could find Muhammad in the Injeel, then that means Christians must have had it at the time of Muhammad. And of course, since we have today what the Christians had at the time of Muhammad, then that means that Christians today have the Injeel.

This puts Muslims in quite a bind. Instead of crying down everything they don’t like in the Bible as a corruption of the original message sent down by God in the first century, they will now have to do the tough job of disproving that the Bible, i.e. the Injeel, teaches things like the following:

Jesus is God

Jesus became a human being

Jesus died, was buried and rose again for the salvation of sinners

Among other things.

There can be no question of corruption from a Qur’anic standpoint, and thus no cherry-picking of verses to avoid the obvious. The only option that is open to Muslims in light of what Professor Haleem admitted, i.e. the Qur’an does not teach that the Bible has been corrupted, and that the Qur’an demonstrates, i.e. the Bible is the Injeel, is the hard job of honest exegesis.

This is why Professor Haleem's devastating admission coupled with an artificial and false distinction could only provide temporary relief for those who want to give credence to the Qur’an, even those who have left Islam behind. PW should really just come all the way out and make a clean break with Islam, leaving behind not only any hope of being able to live up to the Qur'an's impossible requirements, but also any notion that it is true in its theological and historical teachings.

The good news for those who have ears to hear it, is that according to the uncorrupted Injeel, the true God does not first require us to live up to His dictates before He will love us; rather, we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). And God demonstrated his own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). That is why Jesus could say in the Gospel that His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matthew 11:30). The love of God taught in the Bible is a saving and transforming love; the love of Allah taught in the Qur’an produces despair for those who are honest with the fact that they do not measure up to what Allah requires in order to be loved by him. PW has already learned the latter. Let's pray that he (and all Muslims) also comes to learn the former.

Why Did Allah Corrupt the Gospel?

The Qur'an affirms the inspiration (3:3-4), preservation (7:157; 18:27), and authority of the Gospel (5:47, 68). Yet our Muslim friends tell us that the Gospel has been corrupted. Here we may start to wonder who corrupted it. According to the Qur'an, Jesus never died by crucifixion (4:157-158). According to the Bible, Jesus died by crucifixion (e.g., Matthew 17:22-23; 27:50; etc.). Who corrupted the portion of the Gospel that reports Jesus' death on the cross? Interestingly, Islam teaches that Allah corrupted the Gospel by tricking and deceiving people into believing that Jesus died on the cross. But why would Allah corrupt his own revelation?

The Gospel of John (Visual Bible)

The Gospel of John is the fourth of the canonical Gospels. This 2003 film version is a word-for-word adaptation from the Good News Bible.

Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)

Popular Muslim speaker Dr. Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad's name can be found in Song of Solomon 5:16, which reads:

"His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

According to Zakir Naik, since the Hebrew word translated as "wholly desirable" (machmadim) sounds like the Arabic name "Muhammad," the word should actually be translated as "Muhammad." Yet if we follow Naik's reasoning, we must conclude that since the Hebrew word for "mouse" is akbar, we should translate the Arabic sentence "Allahu Akbar" as "Allah is a mouse"! Why aren't Muslims embarrassed that their top apologists are using arguments which, if taken seriously, would prove that their god is a rodent? How desperate do Muslims have to be when their arguments are this hopelessly flawed?

Here's our discussion of Naik's argument:

For more on the claim that Muhammad's name can be found in the Song of Solomon, see:

• "Does Song of Songs Mention Muhammad's Name?"
• "Muhammad Mentioned by Name in the Song of Solomon 5:16?"

Here's a more detailed response by James White:

And here's a brief reply showing more absurdities in the Muslim argument:

Refuting Zakir Naik on Muhammad in the Bible

According to Qur'an 7:157, the Bible contains prophecies about Muhammad. Not surprisingly, Muslim apologists like Zakir Naik have searched the Bible desperately in order to find these so-called prophecies about Muhammad. Some of the most common passages Muslims point to are Deuteronomy 18:18, Isaiah 29:12, Song of Solomon 5:16, John 14:16.

In this video, Sam Shamoun and I examine Naik's arguments, showing that all of the passages he refers to actually prove that Muhammad was a false prophet. Indeed, as we demonstrate, any Muslim who takes Naik's arguments seriously must conclude that Allah is a mouse, that Muhammad stubbornly refused to listen to God, and that Jesus is Muhammad's God!

Click here for more on Muhammad in the Bible.

Does the Qur'an Claim That the Bible Has Been Corrupted?

Sam Shamoun vs. Shabir Ally: The Bible or the Qur'an?

Thanks to Nazam for forwarding the link.

On the Proper and Improper Use of Extra-Biblical and Extra-Qur'anic Commentaries

I quote Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Abbas when I discuss the teachings of the Qur'an. Muslims quote Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas when they discuss the teachings of the Bible. Yet there is a massive difference between the way Christians use extra-Qur'anic sources and the way Muslims use extra-Biblical source.

To illustrate the difference, consider the following imaginary (yet altogether typical) dialogues.

DIALOGUE #1
CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!

DIALOGUE #2
MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.

Do you see the difference? When Christians appeal to Muslim commentators, it's to show that verses of the Qur'an mean what they say, and that Muslim attempts to reinterpret embarrassing verses are a modern phenomenon, often influenced by Western values. When Muslims appeal to Christian commentators, it's to show that verses of the Bible can't mean what they say, and that Christian attempts to follow what the Bible actually says are misguided.

Consider a few more illustrations.

(1) The Qur'an commands Muslims to beat rebellious wives (4:34). Westernized Muslims today say that this verse simply refers to a light, symbolic tapping with a toothbrush. Here Christians go to Muslim commentaries showing that the verse means exactly what it says, and Muslims reject the commentaries, choosing instead to go against the obvious meaning of the Qur'an.

(2) The Qur'an says that there is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Since the Qur'an plainly declares that earlier verses are abrogated by conflicting later verses, it's obvious that 2:256 was abrogated by verses such as 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, and 9:123. But Muslims don't want to admit that the few peaceful teachings of the Qur'an have been abrogated, so they reinterpret abrogation, saying that it only applies to the Qur'an abrogating previous scriptures. Thus the Christian pulls out Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir to show that abrogation applies to earlier verses of the Qur'an, and commentaries are produced to show that 2:256 has either been abrogated or that it only applies to "People of the Book" who are paying the Jizyah. At this point, Muslims reject all of their greatest commentators, ignore the Qur'anic context, pound their fists on the table, declare that 2:256 is valid towards all people, use 2:256 to reinterpret clear Qur'anic commands to violence, and finally declare that Islam is a religion of peace and that anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe!

(3) According to the Qur'an, men can have sex with prepubescent girls (65:4). Though the verse clearly discusses girls who haven't yet reached the age of puberty, Westernized Muslim proclaim that it doesn't mean this at all. Here we consult Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Jalalayn, and we find that all of them understood 65:4 to refer to sex with prepubescent girls (i.e. exactly what the verse says). Modern Muslims, however, don't want to accept this, and so they once again throw out their greatest commentators.

(4) The Bible commands husbands to love our wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), to be ready to lay down our lives for them, and not to be harsh with them (Colossians 3:19). The Bible declares that both men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28). To show that these verses can't possibly mean what they say and that the Bible condemns women as the inferior sexual slaves of abusive men, Muslims go on to quote later Christian commentators who ignore the clear teachings of the Bible.

To sum up, Christians want to accurately report the meaning of both the Bible and the Qur'an, in order to allow people to make an informed choice between the two religions. Hence, Christians attempt to read both Christian and Muslim sources in context and to provide a clear account of what the religions teach. Muslims want to misrepresent both the Bible and the Qur'an in order to keep people from honestly assessing the evidence. Thus, Muslims distort the teachings of the Bible by appealing to extra-Biblical sources, and they reject extra-Qur'anic sources which declare that the Qur'an means what it says.

It could be useful to come up with some sort of rule about how to use sources outside of the Bible and the Qur'an. It might run as follows:

"Scripture is to be interpreted primarily by other scripture. That is, a verse is to be evaluated according to its context in the passage and in light of other verses in the text. If a verse is ambiguous, it should be interpreted based on clear verses addressing the same topic. Commentaries may be consulted here to provide the historical context, which reflects what the verse would have meant to the people to whom it was addressed. When someone attempts to deviate from the clear contextual meaning of a verse, commentaries should be provided to show that orthodox scholars prior to modern influence agreed with the clear contextual meaning, and that modern reinterpretations are therefore probably wrong. When a commentary presents an interpretation that conflicts with the clear contextual meaning, the commentary is to be rejected."

For some excellent examples of how these conflicting uses of extra-Biblical and extra-Qur'anic sources play out in debate, please watch our debate with Abdullah and Yahya on whether Islam is a religion of peace, as well as my debate with Abdullah on whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Pay attention to how sources are used. I haven't seen Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum yet, but I suspect that the same would apply to that debate. That is, I suspect that Mary Jo uses extra-Qur'anic sources to show that the Qur'an means what it says, and that Tabasum uses extra-Biblical sources in order to distort what Christianity actually teaches. Of course, this is simply a prediction based on my working hypothesis (which, in turn, is based on past observations). Anyone know whether my prediction is confirmed?

The Quran vs. the Bible: A Comparison of Textual Integrity

We've all seen it, and we've seen it all too often.  The topic of discussion might be Muhammad, Islamic theology, or the Quran.  When evidence that challenges the Muslim position is proffered, a regular response is: "But your Bible is corrupt...".  For examples of Muslims committing the tu quoque fallacy, you can click here, here, here, or here.  (All of these occurred on this blog in the last 10 days).

The Muslims who do this, though logically fallacious, do ultimately have a good point.  The New Testament and the Quran are the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam, and as such they merit some degree of comparison. This article compares the basics of textual integrity.  I will attempt to be as unbiased in my presentation as possible before concluding.  (+ or - denotes years from either Muhammad's death or Jesus' death).  NOTE: Detailed discussions concerning canonicity and inspiration are out of the scope of this article.

Inception of scripture:

Quran: -23 years (Recorded during Muhammad's life)

NT: +2 years (Creed from 1 Cor 15:3-8)

Number of Divinely Sanctioned Forms:

Quran: 7 ahruf (Sahih Bukhari 3.601)

NT: 1 form

Earliest Records of Corruption:

Quran: +0 (Some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39)

+12 (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817) 

NT: Uncertain, but late

State-Controlled Recension (revision) of All Manuscripts:

Quran: +20 (Uthman)

NT: Never

State-Controlled Destruction of All Manuscripts:

Quran: +20 (Uthman)

NT: Never

Importance of Textual Preservation for the Religion's Truth Claims:

Quran: Extreme importance (Muhammad's one sign for his truth)

NT: Peripheral importance (Jesus' main sign was his resurrection)

Discussion:

The New Testament had a period of about 3 centuries when it was not openly proliferating throughout the Roman empire.  This was because of edicts issued by Roman authorities which persecuted Christians and/or called for the destruction of the Bible (e.g. the Diocletian Edict).  During this time, a core of books was well known throughout Christendom while the rest of the books were better known in various regions.  

In addition to this, no one person controlled the manuscripts.  They were in the possession of individuals and churches who revered these scriptures and saw to their safe-keeping.  Later, when Constantine's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313 AD, people began openly assembling to officially discuss and agree upon the finer points of the Christian faith.  Thus the Council of Nicaea in 325, and later the Council of Hippo in 393 (which officially canonized the books of the NT).

Though at first glance this seems to be a mark against New Testament integrity, one thing is certain: there is extremely low possibility for textually undetectable corruption in the New Testament.  Here are the reasons:

1. If any errors crept into a manuscript being copied in, for example, Asia Minor, a manuscript from Rome would not contain those errors. Comparing the two (along with other manuscripts) would rectify the mistakes.
2. Since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the manuscripts.
   
3. Since there was no uniform revision of the all the manuscripts, surviving manuscripts can help us piece together the original text, not a revised version of that text.
4. There was no universal destruction of all the texts.  Though many attempted this, such as Diocletian, surviving manuscripts and historical accounts are proof that these attempts were unsuccessful.

The Quran, on the other hand, suffers severely on all four above counts:

1. It was controlled by one person, the khalifa (as evidenced by Uthman's ability to recall all the manuscripts).  
2. It was uniformly revised by Uthman.  
3. During this time, if any error crept into the manuscript which would serve as the official text, this error would only be detectable by comparing it to previous manuscripts.  
4. Unfortunately, all the previous manuscripts were put to the flames.
   

Thus, we can conclude the following:

1. It is virtually impossible for the New Testament to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.
   
2. It is extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.

Of course, this does not necessitate that the Quran was corrupt, it just means that it was extremely prone to textually undetectable corruption.  

But when historical data indicates missing verses as early as the death of Muhammad and the reign of Umar, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely plausible. 

 

When we add to this that Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Quran disagreed with Uthman's final product, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely likely.  

When topped off by quotations from early Muslims which say that "much of the Quran has been lost", the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes incontrovertible.

The coup de grace occurs when we realize that the Quran's textual integrity is central to the truth of Islam.  Muhammad offered the Quran as his most miraculous sign to vindicate his truth.  If the Quran is false about its protection from Allah (15:9), then Islam is false.  This is in contrast to the NT, which does not rely on its textual integrity as a sign for us.

Conclusion:

The history of the New Testament allows its text to be investigated and verified. The Quran cannot allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us such errors exist.  

When pitting the New Testament against the Quran, at least in terms of textual integrity, there is no possible way to vindicate the Quran.