words. The prophets were all perfect men raised for the regeneration of man, but they no doubt possessed varying degrees of excellence according to the nature of the work with which they were entrusted and the capabilities of the race for whose regeneration they were raised. It is in this light, therefore, that we take up the challenge so often given by the Christians as to the comparative greatness of Muhammad or Christ, a task which, though painful, is necessary because of the wrong inferences drawn from the sacred Book of Islam.
The error which Christian writers generally commit is that they place all reliance on words, not caring for the work actually done; they look to appearances, not reality. With them greatness consists in the terms of eulogy which may be heaped upon a person and the incredibly wonderful stories which may be narrated of him, not in the actual work done by him. Hence they are always contending that Jesus speaks of himself thus, not so Muhammad, peace be on him, or that the founder of Christianity performed so many miracles which the founder of Islam did not. The Holy Qur’an, on the other hand, adopts a different attitude towards this question, regarding work, not words or miracles, as the criterion of greatness. It speaks of the greatness of the Holy Prophet not in the words of eulogy in which Jesus Christ speaks of himself according to the Gospels, but by drawing attention to the great change, the mighty transformation, that he brought about in the world. It does not speak, except in rare instances, even of his great miracles which are, however, recorded in collections of reports; in fact, it looks upon all miracles as matters of secondary importance in comparison with the greatest of all miracles, the miracle of planting virtue and supplanting evil in the world, the miracle of taking up men from the depth of degradation and raising them to the highest dignity which they are capable of rising to. And why are miracles wrought, after all? They do not serve any purpose in themselves; they are not the end but the means to the great end of the spiritual regeneration of the world. It is for this reason that the Holy Qur’an does not speak of the Holy Prophet in high-sounding words, nor does it lay much stress on his miracles, but speaks again and again of the wonderful transformation which he wrought, a transformation so unique in the history of the world that the writer of the article on the Koran in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh edition) speaks of him as the “most successful of all prophets and religious personalities,” an admission which far outweighs all the high-sounding words and wonderful stories of the miracles narrated in the Gospels.
The Christian controversialist of today, however, seems to think that he has another way out of the difficulty. He bases the superiority of Christ to other prophets, not on the Gospels, but on the Holy Qur’an. A strange allegation indeed! The Qur’an which, on the one hand, is denounced to be the fabrication of an impostor is brought forward, on the other, as the testimony supporting the extravagant claims advanced for Jesus Christ. The position of the Christian controversialist here is quite inexplicable, but we need not be surprised at it as matters far more important relating to the Christian religion are as inexplicable. It is said that the Holy Qur’an speaks of Jesus Christ in words of high praise. Quite so; but at the same time it mentions him as only one among the numerous Israelite prophets who followed Moses; it describes him to be an apostle bearing a message limited to a single nation:
And an apostle to the children of Israel. [2. 3:48]
This description is sufficient to show that the Holy Qur’an cannot consistently place him in a position of superiority to the other prophets, to say nothing of the great World Prophet whose message is expressly stated to be for the whole human race. But what a Christian is unable to see is, why should the Qur’an speak of a prophet of another nation in words of praise? In fact, he is unable to differentiate between the Gospels and the Holy Qur’an in this respect. The message of Jesus was for the Israelites and therefore he had nothing to do with other prophets; the message of Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, was for the whole world and therefore the Holy Qur’an speaks of the prophets of the whole world. And as in addition it required a belief in all the prophets, therefore it was necessary for it to preach respect for all of them. Now at the time of its advent Jesus Christ and his mother were two of the sacred personages whose names were held in the greatest abhorrence by the Israelites, to which nation they belonged. Mary was falsely accused of adultery, and her son was denounced as the offspring of illicit intercourse and as a liar. The Holy Qur’an had to sweep away these calumnies to establish the great principle of the righteousness of all prophets. Those who lay much stress on the words of praise for Jesus Christ and his mother in the Holy Qur’an must remember that the false allegations of the Jews against these two righteous persons required a mention of their virtues and their greatness, and the very fact that other prophets were not denounced in such evil terms made a mention of their virtues unnecessary.
If, however, it is inconsistent in a Christian to base the alleged superiority of Jesus Christ to the Holy Prophet on a book which he condemns as the work of an impostor, it is stranger still that wild statements are often made in making out a case for Jesus which are not only opposed to the Holy Qur’an, but which even the Gospels, the sacred scriptures of the Christian religion, condemn to be false and conclusions are drawn from the words of the Holy Qur’an which are not only quite foreign to its intent but which are also belied by the Gospels. In dealing with this question therefore I shall have to refer both to the Holy Qur’an and the Bible, especially the Gospels. But as regards the reliability which can be placed upon the material drawn from these two sources, there is a world of difference and the circumstances under which the Gospels were written and transmitted make it necessary to accept their statements very guardedly.
As regards the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an, I need not detain the reader very long. From one end of the world to the other, from China in the Far East to Morocco and Algeria in the Far West, from the scattered islands of the Pacific Ocean to the great desert of Africa, the Qur’an is one, and no copy differing in even a diacritical point is met with in the possession of one among the four hundred millions of Muslims. There are, and always have been, contending sects, but the same Qur’an is in the possession of one and all. Political dissensions and doctrinal differences grew up within a quarter of a century after the death of the Holy Prophet, but no one ever raised a voice against the purity of the text of the Holy Qur’an. A manuscript with the slightest variation in the text is unknown. Even Dr. Mingana has been unable to show any but mistakes due to carelessness in copying or transcription by inexperienced hands in his “Leaves from three ancient Qur’ans”. And the original manuscript copies made and circulated under the orders of the third successor of the Holy Prophet have been safely preserved to this day. Here is the opinion of a hostile critic:
The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered ... contending and embittered factions taking their rise in the murder of Othman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Mohamet, have ever since rent the Mohametan world. Yet but One Coran has been current amongst them; and the consentaneous use by all of the same scripture in every age to the present day is an irrefragable proof that we have now before us the very text prepared by command of the unfortunate Caliph. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text
(Muir’s Life of Mohamet; italics are mine).
The same author goes on to show that the copy made by ‘Uthman was a faithful reproduction of the copy made by Zaid only six months after the death of the Holy Prophet and that Zaid’s edition was a faithful copy of the revelations of the Holy Prophet, giving a number of reasons for believing so, and the conclusion to which he comes is that he agrees with the verdict of Von Hammer: ‘That we hold the Coran to be as surely Mohamet’s word as the Mohametans hold it to be the word of God.”
The story of the authorship and transmission of the Gospels is, however, quite different. The earliest existing manuscript that was found in 1859 is a Greek manuscript which, we are told, was made about the middle of the fourth century after Jesus Christ. Being found on Mount Sinai in the Convent of St. Catherine it is known as the Siniaticus. Another known as the Alexandrinus which is now in the British Museum belongs to the fifth century. Another called the Vatican belongs to the fourth century but is incomplete. And these are said to be the three chief manuscripts.
