Basically, the Christian missionaries' argument is circular. According to them, the Bible says such-and-such and the Qur'ân says such-and-such; therefore it follows that it is a contradiction in the Qur'ân.
Not really, the Muslim argument for the Qur'an is circular, claiming that it must be true [and the Bible must be in error] simply because the Qur'an says that it is true. It says so, therefore it is so. However, I believe that there is a crucial difference between the Christian and Muslim approaches to the analysis of scripture.
Unlike most Muslims, who without question believe in the alleged Prophethood Muhammad and the purported Divine origins of the Qur'an, many Christians, including me, study and test the claims of those who claim to be Prophets of God, and scriptures which are said to be from Him. When I study the teachings of someone who claims Prophethood, I employ two criteria:
1. The Biblical Test
How do we determine if anyone is a true Prophet of God with a Divine Revelation? Do we simply take them at their word? If this is the case, then we have many people throughout history, as well as today, who claim to have messages from God! Fortunately, God gives us a criterion to test the claims of those who claim to be Prophets:
The fact of the matter is, that Muhammad gave us no prophecies which came true. He does not pass God's test as a Prophet and his Qur'an is, therefore, not the Word of God.
2. The Theological Test
Unlike many of my Muslim brothers and sisters, I do not scrutinize the teachings of all of the Prophets of God based on the criteria put forth by someone who claims to be a Prophet. I look at those who claim to be Prophets and scrutinize them, and their message, using the criteria established by God's Prophets over the centuries. In other words, I study the "revelations" of all "would be" Prophets based on the writings and teachings of the Biblical Prophets. If the "would be" Prophet's teachings contradict the teachings of the Prophets of God [as Muhammad's teachings do], I reject him. Likewise, the later Prophets of the Bible are scrutinized based on the teachings of earlier [established] Prophets. We never analyze the previous Prophets by the criteria of more recent Prophets.
Since the Bible says so, it must be true. Proof is not necessary, Belief is sufficient.
This sounds much closer to the Muslim claims for the Qur'an. This is most certainly not the case for Christians. The Bible clearly tells us:
No attempt is made by the Christian missionaries to show that the Biblical account is historical and the Qur'ânic one a legend.
This is completely false! There are numerous organizations devoted to the study of Biblical archeology including : The Foundation for Biblical Archaeology, BIBARCH, Associates for Biblical Research, Near East Archaeological Society (NEAS), and Archaeology Society; as well as publications such as Biblical Archaeologist, Biblical Archaeology and American Archaeologist, and Biblical Archaeology. Where are the Muslim counterparts of these organizations and publications? In fact, the recently discovered Sana'a [Yemen] Qur'an's were preserved and analyzed by European scholars using a grant from the German government - no support came from Saudi Arabia or any of the wealthy Emirates! Why are Muslims not interested in the history of their scriptures? Is Maurice Bucaille and the pseudo-scientific It is [the] Truth website the best responses that Islamic apologetics has to offer?
As far as showing that the Qur'an is [largely] based on legends, W. St. Clair Tisdall has done an excellent job of proving that this is indeed the case, in spite of the ad hominem attacks made against him on Saifullah's site.
Also, Bible translations have been improved in recent years through the incorporation of older manuscripts that have been discovered in recent times. Why are Muslims so reluctant to do the same with the Qur'an? Why have Muslims leaders prohibited the examination of the oldest Qur'ans? Perhaps an examination of the problems with the the Samarkand Qur'an will provide some reasons for the reluctance of Muslims to examine the manuscript evidence for their "scriptures"? Also, why have some writers such as Anwar Shaikh received numerous death threats from Islamic leaders because of their analysis of Islamic history? It must be noted that none of the persons or organizations who issued the fatwas against Mr. Shaikh accepted an invitation to publically debate him and his ideas - their only response was to issue threats! If the Qur'an is the truth, what do they have to fear?
Responses to Islamic Awareness
Answering Islam Home Page