How Quran Affirms Gospels and Ends The ‘Lost Book’ Delusion
The relationship between Quran and the prior scriptures of the Abrahamic tradition — specifically Injil (Gospel) and Tawrat (Torah) — stands as one of the most volatile yet vital frontiers of modern interfaith theology
The relationship between Quran and the prior scriptures of the Abrahamic tradition — specifically Injil (Gospel) and Tawrat (Torah) — stands as one of the most volatile yet vital frontiers of modern interfaith theology. In the contemporary era, few interventions have sparked as much critical re-evaluation as Alan Shlemon’s paper, ‘Is Quran’s Injil the Same as the New Testament Gospels?’
Shlemon’s work, primarily a Christian apologetic effort, seeks to address a profound disconnect: the common assertion in some theological circles that the original Injil revealed to Jesus is a lost, singular, celestial text that bears little resemblance to the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament.
Shlemon’s thesis is provocative yet grounded in a literalist reading of the Quranic text. He argues that Quran affirms Injil as an uncorrupted, extant document that was physically present and accessible in the seventh century. This claim challenges the foundational ‘Theory of the Lost Book’ that has dominated certain polemics for centuries. However, Shlemon’s inquiry finds a surprising and scholarly ally in a reconciliatory Islamic framework that aligns with Shlemon’s historical observations while deepening the theological implications for a modern audience.
As this reconciliatory scholarship argues, the ‘Lost Book’ theory creates a ‘theological vacuum’, effectively undermining the integrity of Quran itself and the historical continuity of the prophetic tradition. By synthesising Shlemon’s historical rigour with a liberatory hermeneutic, the discourse moves toward an ‘enlightened appreciation’ of the Gospels — one that honours Quran’s self-proclaimed role as Muhaymin (Guardian/Criterion) without requiring the erasure of the Christian textual heritage. This paper explores this synthesis across forty thematic chapters, divided into five volumes.
Introduction to the Discourse of Scriptural Continuity
The Quranic narrative does not present itself as an isolated phenomenon but as the culmination of a divine trajectory. Alan Shlemon’s paper enters this space by questioning the identity of the Injil. For centuries, a ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ has dominated, where Christian scriptures were viewed as fabrications. Shlemon’s intervention is essential because it forces a return to the text of the Holy Quran. The reconciliatory framework takes this further, suggesting that the continuity of revelation is a requirement for Quran’s validity. If the Injil is a phantom, Quran’s claim to be a Musaddiq (Confirmer) is rendered empty.
Shlemon’s argument is constructed upon three pillars. First, the absence of historical evidence for a ‘lost’ Jesus-book. This absence is a positive indication that the Injil was an oral proclamation recorded by witnesses. Second, the internal evidence of Quran (Surah 4:47, 7:157, 10:94), which speaks of a document ‘with’ the People of the Book. Third, the historical reality of seventh-century Christianity, where the four Gospels were the only recognised Injil. These pillars demand an academic engagement that moves beyond mere assertion.
The theory of a lost book is identified as an apologetic development designed to resolve theological tensions by creating a historical void. The reconciliatory framework contends that this theory posits a ‘Dark Age’ of revelation inconsistent with the nature of God. If God is Al-Qayyum (The Sustainer), it is inconceivable that He would allow the light of the Messiah’s revelation to be totally snuffed out. This work provides a sophisticated Islamic defence of Shlemon’s premise: The Injil is not a phantom, but a living scripture.
The ‘Lost Book’ theory creates a vacuum that undermines the Prophetic tradition. If the Injil disappeared shortly after Jesus, then for six hundred years, the world was left without ‘Guidance and Light’. This view portrays a God who failed to protect His message, which contradicts the Quranic attribute of Al-Hafiz (The Guardian). Shlemon’s historical rigour fills this vacuum by affirming that the message remained extant and accessible.
A central point of friction is the definition of Injil. Traditionalists imagine a bound volume descending from heaven. Shlemon and modern reconciliatory scholars both critique this. The word Injil is the Arabised Greek Euangelion, meaning ‘Good News’. It referred to a proclamation, not a physical object. Jesus himself was the ‘Message’. Thus, the Injil is the spiritual essence of Jesus’s teaching, preserved through history in textual forms.
Critics ask why Quran says Injil (singular) when there are four Gospels. Shlemon addresses this by noting that by the seventh century, the four Gospels were treated as a unit. The reconciliatory framework adds that the singular Injil signifies the unified divine message (risala) preserved in canonical vessels. This resolves the linguistic tension without necessitating the invention of a lost, monolithic codex.
Shlemon and the reconciliatory framework both utilise the ‘Hermeneutic of Presence’. This is the idea that the Quranic discourse assumes the Injil is a functional, contemporary scripture. Surah 5:68 commands Christians to ‘uphold the Torah and the Gospel’. This confers a moral weight upon the extant texts. If the texts were corrupted beyond recognition, God would be commanding believers to follow a falsehood—a logical impossibility.
Historical Continuity and Textual Presence of Injil
The linguistic journey of the word Injil is a major blow to the ‘Lost Book’ theory. Euangelion did not denote a leather-bound volume authored by a single individual; it was a proclamation of victory. Shlemon’s argument rests on the fact that the four Gospels were treated as a unit liturgically. This philological continuity bridges the gap between Shlemon’s historical claims and the Quranic singular, suggesting the ‘Book’ given to Jesus was the message he carried.
Shlemon emphasises that for Quranic commands to be valid, the Injil had to be a ‘present reality’. Arabia was a crossroads of Nestorian, Jacobite, and Abyssinian traditions. The reconciliatory framework provides historical depth: The Quranic discourse treats the Injil not as an archaeological relic, but as a ‘living reality’. The Christians of Najran possessed the New Testament, and Quran addresses the scripture that was ‘with them’ (ma’ahum).
Shlemon’s most potent argument involves physical evidence — the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These 4th-century manuscripts prove that the Gospels were stable centuries before Muhammad. The reconciliatory perspective suggests that the essence of the Injil is preserved within the New Testament, and these codices are the material witnesses to that preservation. This dismantles the ‘Total Discontinuity’ narrative by proving the ‘vessel’ of the Injil was already fixed.
The Quranic phrase ma’ahum (‘with them’) serves as the linguistic anchor. Shlemon quotes Surah 7:157, where the Prophet is ‘found written in the Torah and the Injil that are with them’. The preposition ma’a implies physical possession and immediate availability. If the Injil were lost, the word ma’ahum would be a divine misstatement. A lost text renders the divine command to ‘judge by it’ absurd.
The delegation of Najran provides a vital ‘proof of concept’. According to tradition, the Prophet did not accuse the Christians of having a ‘fake’ book. The reconciliatory framework argues that Quran’s responses engage with their Christology, not their textual validity. Shlemon’s argument that Quran affirms Injil as an ‘enduring document’ is perfectly illustrated here. The debate was about how they interpreted the Gospel, not whether they possessed it.
Shlemon notes the four Gospels were ‘treated as a unit’. In the East, this unit was often the Diatessaron—a harmonisation of the four Gospels. This explains why Quran refers to the Injil in the singular. To the 7th-century Arab ear, ‘The Gospel’ was the unified story of Jesus. This resolves the singular-plural dynamic as a reflection of how revelation is housed in history.
Surah 10:94 urges the Prophet to consult ‘those who have been reading the Scripture before you’ if in doubt. Shlemon sees this as a staggering endorsement. The reconciliatory framework calls this the ‘Hermeneutic of Presence’. If those texts were corrupted beyond recognition, God would be pointing the Prophet toward a source of error. Epistemic stability ensures the Quranic worldview is grounded in a consistent, merciful God.
Both Shlemon and reconciliatory scholars encourage a move away from ‘historical literalism’ that demands a physical Jesus-book. Understanding the Injil extends beyond physical existence into the ‘spiritual essence captured within the texts’. By recognising the Injil as an enduring message, we broaden the horizon for interfaith relations and stop looking for a buried treasure in the sand.
Deconstructing Tahrif — Textual vs. Interpretive Distortion
The doctrine of Tahrif is a primary barrier. Traditionalists assert physical alteration (Tahrif al-Lafz). Shlemon challenges this by arguing that Quran’s affirmation of the Injil as ‘with them’ binds Muslims to recognise its integrity. The reconciliatory framework redefines Tahrif as Tahrif al-Ma’na—the distortion of meaning through misinterpretation. This refinement allows us to appreciate Shlemon’s historical claims while maintaining Quran’s critical stance toward specific theological developments.
Shlemon’s argument rests on a theological implication: if Quran commands Christians to judge by Injil, then Injil must be trustworthy. He asserts that Quran presents the Injil as an ‘enduring document’. This is supported by the fact that the ‘Lost Book’ theory is a later apologetic development. The Quranic text itself addresses the ‘living scriptures’ of the era, such as those found in stable manuscripts.
Central to this appreciation is Surah 5:48, describing Quran as Muhaymin (Guardian/Criterion). This role is not one of ‘eraser’ but of ‘guardian’. The Holy Quran acts as a filter, allowing the believer to identify the authentic Injil — the ‘guidance and light’—within the canonical Gospels. This resolves the tension between Shlemon’s affirmation and Quran’s occasional critiques of specific communal dogmas.
To understand Tahrif, one must look at Surah 3:78, which describes people who ‘alter the Scripture with their tongues’. This is an oral act of misinterpretation, not a physical rewriting of manuscripts. Shlemon’s paper supports this by noting historical stability. If the text were being physically rewritten across all Christendom, archaeological evidence would be rampant. Instead, the corruption is in the misreading of the text.
It is indeed a misconception to claim that all Muslim scholars rejected the integrity of the Bible in the same absolute way, and historically there has been considerable nuance in how tahrif was understood and applied. In the early centuries of Islamic tafsir, figures such as al-Ṭabari (d. 923) and Ibn Qutayba (d. 889) regularly quoted the Bible (especially Torah material) as a source in Quranic commentary — often treating tahrif as a distortion of interpretation (tahrif al-maʿna) rather than textual corruption (tahrif al-lafẓ) of the actual books Muslims then possessed, and using these quotations to support Islamic claims rather than discard the scriptures outright. This reflects an early tradition that did not deny the value or legitimacy of earlier scriptures but critiqued misinterpretations. Likewise, exegetes across the formative period, including companions’ successors like Ibn ʿAbbas and later commentators like al-Suyuṭi and al-Razi, differed on whether tahrif meant textual change, exegetical distortion, or a mix of both in discussing prior scriptures.
Meanwhile, the modern category of Muslim Hebraists such as Syed Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) represents a later, reconciliatory framework that explicitly rejects the wholesale concept of tahrif by upholding the divine origin and considerable integrity of the Tawrat and Injil, and instead seeks to interpret these scriptures sympathetically alongside Quran — a stance that counters narratives of total corruption.
In contemporary polemical and interfaith discussions, scholars and apologists like Alan Shlemon (among others in Christian Muslim dialogue circles) revive this historically grounded position by arguing that early Muslim engagement with the Bible was more nuanced and that Tahrif al-Maʿna was often the default reading, not textual annihilation of the Bible itself. While Shlemon is not a classical Muslim commentator but rather a modern voice in interreligious discourse pointedly critiquing oversimplified narratives, his argument echoes this early consensus that tahrif primarily concerned meaning, not manuscripts — and suggests that doctrines like the “lost book” theory create a theological vacuum that can unintentionally undermine the Quran’s designation as musaddiq (confirmer) of earlier revelations (seen, for example, in Quran 5:48), which presupposes continuity rather than obliteration of earlier texts.
The Holy Quran describes Injil as guidance and light (hudan wa nur), affirming its revelatory and ethical authority (5:46). As Shlemon rightly emphasises, this description refers to the scriptures that were actually in the possession of Christians during the Prophet Muhammad’s time, not to a lost or inaccessible text (5:47). This “light” is not framed in the Quran as a complete legal system but as the monotheistic, moral, and spiritual core of Jesus’s teaching, centred on God-consciousness, compassion, justice, and humility—elements that Quran itself acknowledges as enduring within the Christian tradition (3:48–49, 19:36, 57:27).
Quran further clarifies that its own role is not to erase this light but to function as a muhaymin—a guardian, criterion, and overseer—over previous scriptures (5:48). This muhaymin function preserves the ethical and monotheistic essence of the Injil while preventing it from being eclipsed or distorted by later human theological accretions, sectarian disputes, or excessive dogmatic speculation (2:79, 3:64). In this way, Quran positions itself not as a replacement that nullifies the Injil, but as a revelatory framework that confirms, safeguards, and ethically re-centres the light that continues to shine within the Gospels for those who seek guidance through righteousness and sincerity (5:68, 29:46).
Reconciling the ‘Son of God’ — From Ontology to Idiom
The most formidable barrier is the title ‘Son of God’. Shlemon argues Quran’s affirmation includes these titles. The reconciliatory framework provides a bridge by distinguishing between Hellenistic ontology and Semitic idiom. It argues that the Quranic rejection is of walad (biological child), whereas in the Semitic world, ‘Son of God’ was an idiom for election and covenantal intimacy.
Jesus is identified as the ‘Word’. Shlemon notes the unique status of the Quranic Jesus. Surah 4:171 labels him as ‘His Word (Kalima)’. This intersects with the Logos of the Gospel of John. Both traditions present Jesus as the revelation itself manifested in history. To the Quranic mind, Jesus is the embodied ‘Be!’ (Kun) of God.
The Quranic Jesus performs miracles, always qualified by bi-idhnillah (‘by God’s permission’). This aligns with John 5:19, where Jesus says the Son can do nothing of himself. This ‘hermeneutic of dependency’ shows that the Gospel portrait of Jesus is far more ‘Quranic’ than traditional polemics suggest. Shlemon’s affirmation allows Muslims to see this shared theological root.
Surah 4:157 says ‘they killed him not… but it was made to appear so to them’. A phenomenological reading suggests Quran denies the victory of the executioners. To the authorities, Jesus appeared defeated; that was the shubha (appearance). But the reality is that God raised him. Shlemon’s argument for uncorrupted Gospels allows us to see the crucifixion as a historical event that Quran provides a metaphysical commentary upon.
Surah 61:6 claims Jesus prophesied a messenger named Ahmad. This points to the Paraclete in John 14:16. While Christians identify this as the Holy Spirit, the description of a figure who ‘speaks what he hears’ resonates with Muhammad. By affirming the Gospels as Injil, Muslims gain access to the text where this prophecy is housed.
Shlemon emphasizes that Quran affirms the Injil as guidance and light, and this illuminating quality becomes ethically visible in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). Within this discourse, mercy, peace-making, humility, and a justice that surpasses legal formalism stand at the very heart of faithfulness to God (Matthew 5:7–9, 20; 6:1–4; 7:12). The enduring essence of the Injil is thus preserved in its uncompromising call to mercy and justice, a call that echoes the prophetic tradition’s insistence that love of God is inseparable from love of neighbour and concrete ethical action (Matthew 22:37–40; Luke 10:33–37).
In this light, Quran’s Muhaymin role functions as a moral guardian rather than a negator—protecting these ethical pearls by recalling believers to the radical, monotheistic moral vision shared by both traditions. This vision demands justice, mercy, and humility before God as the true markers of authentic religiosity (Matthew 23:23; Luke 4:18–19). By safeguarding this shared ethical core, the Muhaymin framework calls followers of both scriptures back to the same primordial commitment to God-centred justice, compassion, and moral integrity.
Acknowledging the Gospels as the Injil does not mean accepting every later dogma. The Holy Quran distinguishes between the revelation (the Injil) and the tradition (the Church). The Muhaymin filter allows the believer to sift the gold of Jesus’s words from the dross of human theological elaboration.
Toward a Pluralistic Future — Reconciliation as Vital Dialogue
The debate over Injil is a battle for the soul of interfaith relations. The ‘Lost Book’ theory acts as a terminal barrier. Shlemon’s paper provides the historical tool to dismantle this barrier. A progressive theology must reject the ‘polemical stance’ in favour of recognising that God’s guidance is a continuous ‘divine protection’.
The Muhaymin role should not be understood as a mandate for triumphalism, but as a reconciliatory approach. Shlemon argues that Quran’s affirmation binds Muslims to a recognition of the Gospel’s integrity. The Holy Quran serves as the criterion to sift divine light from human interpretive shadows, facilitating pluralistic coexistence.
The invitation to ‘come to a common word’ (Surah 3:64) is only possible if there is a ‘common text’. If the Injil is lost, there is no commonality. The essence of the Injil is preserved within the New Testament. Reading the Sermon on the Mount alongside Quranic calls for equity reveals the spiritual continuum of the Abrahamic faiths.
For centuries, apologetics has posited a ‘Dark Age’ between Jesus and Muhammad. Shlemon’s historical evidence effectively ends this narrative. God would never allow His message to be totally lost. This realisation provides epistemic stability, ensuring that the Quranic worldview is grounded in a consistent, merciful God.
This means the Gospel is no longer a ‘forbidden book’ for the Muslim. Shlemon’s paper invites a ‘nuanced manner’ of engagement. Practical implications include shared scripture circles and collaborative ethics. This reconciliatory framework offers a pathway for meaningful engagement that respects both Quran’s authority and the integrity of the Gospels.
We must move from ‘polemics’ (proving others wrong) to ‘hermeneutics’ (understanding how God speaks). The ‘Lost Book’ theory is a weapon; the ‘Extant Injil’ theory is a bridge. This framework allows the believer to respect both Quran’s authority and the historical integrity of the Gospels.
The overarching theme is ‘Divine Pedagogy’. God reveals truth through history and human communities. Shlemon’s arguments emphasise that Quran’s mention of the Injil refers to the living Gospel tradition. Quran is a guardian and confirmer of the Truth that came before it.
The conclusion leaves us with a vision of scriptural integrity. Alan Shlemon has provided a ‘compelling case’ for Quran’s affirmation of the Gospels. Reconciliatory scholarship has challenged us to engage in a ‘more nuanced manner’. Through this lens, we appreciate that the ‘essence of the Injil is preserved within the Gospels’.
To achieve a full scholarly appreciation, we must delve deeper into the specific textual and historical nuances raised by Alan Shlemon and supported by modern reconciliatory hermeneutics. This synthesis is not merely an academic exercise; it is a fundamental re-orientation of the Islamic-Christian dialogue.
The Historical Reality of 7th Century Christianity
Alan Shlemon’s reliance on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus is not just a point of archaeological interest; it is an epistemological anchor. In the seventh century, the Arabian Peninsula was surrounded by vibrant Christian communities. The Christians of Ethiopia (Abyssinia), who provided refuge to the early Muslims, read the Gospels in Ge’ez. The Syriac-speaking Christians of the Levant and the Persian Empire read the Peshitta. These versions were already established and standardised. When Quran commands the Christians of Najran to ‘judge by what God has revealed therein’, it is historically impossible for this command to refer to any text other than the canonical Gospels used by these very communities.
The reconciliatory framework builds on this by noting that the Quranic address is contextual. The Holy Quran speaks to a living audience about a living scripture. If that scripture were a secret, lost Aramaic document, Quran’s command would be a divine riddle rather than a divine guidance. The ma’ahum (with them) argument is the linguistic proof of this presence. It implies that the Injil was a functional legal and moral authority for the Christians known to the Prophet.
A significant portion of the misunderstanding regarding the Injil stems from a category error in philology. The Arabic word Injil is a direct descendant of the Greek Euangelion. In the first-century context, Euangelion was a secular term used to announce a royal victory or a transformative event. When Jesus used it, he was announcing the ‘Kingdom of God’. Injil was therefore a proclamation (kerygma).
Modern Muslim reconciliatory scholarship emphasises that Jesus did not ‘write’ a book; he was the message. This aligns with the Quranic description of Jesus as the Kalima (Word) of God. If Jesus is the Word, then the Injil is the historical record of that Word’s manifestation. Shlemon’s argument that the four Gospels are the Injil is validated here because the four Gospels are the primary historical vessels of that proclamation. The move from oral kerygma to written codex did not corrupt the message; it preserved it for future generations, including the generation of Quran.
The common polemical claim of Tahrif al-Lafz (textual corruption) often relies on the idea that the Bible was physically altered to hide prophecies of Muhammad. However, Shlemon and reconciliatory scholars point out that Quran actually uses the stability of the previous scriptures to validate its own message. If the previous scriptures were entirely unreliable, the Holy Quran’s claim to be their ‘confirmer’ (Musaddiq) would be meaningless. Confirmation requires a stable object to be confirmed.
The reconciliatory framework distinguishes between the text and the interpretation. The ‘twisting of tongues’ mentioned in Surah 3:78 refers to how the People of the Book presented their scriptures to the Prophet, perhaps misrepresenting specific passages to avoid acknowledging his mission. This is a critique of the people, not the text. By acknowledging the integrity of the New Testament manuscripts, we honour Quran’s role as Muhaymin — the guardian that watches over the divine truth and sifts it from human theological accretions.
One of the most profound areas of convergence found in the synthesis of Shlemon’s and reconciliatory work is the metaphysical status of Jesus. While traditional debates focus on the ‘Trinity’, a more nuanced Quranic appreciation looks at the term Kalima. Surah 4:171 labels Jesus as ‘His Word which He directed to Mary’. This is a stunning parallel to the prologue of John’s Gospel: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’
The reconciliatory framework suggests that while Quran rejects the Hellenistic/pagan concept of ‘biological sonship’ (walad), it maintains the Semitic concept of the Logos/Kalima. Jesus is the creative ‘Be!’ (Kun) of God. Shlemon’s argument for the integrity of the Gospels allows Muslims to read the Gospel of John as a poetic and metaphysical expansion of this Quranic truth. The ‘light’ of the Injil mentioned in Quran is precisely this realisation of Jesus’s unique status as the embodied Word of God.
The role of Quran as Muhaymin (Surah 5:48) is often misinterpreted as a mandate to discard previous scriptures. However, the root of the word implies ‘watching over’ or ‘safeguarding’. A guardian does not destroy the thing it guards. Instead, Quran acts as a criterion to help the believer discern the essential, primordial monotheism of Jesus within the Gospels.
When Shlemon argues that Muslims must affirm the present Gospels, the reconciliatory framework adds a layer of sophistication: we affirm them as the vessel of the Injil. Within that vessel, Quran helps us see the ‘Guidance and Light’. This includes the radical ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, the call to social justice, and the absolute devotion to the Father (God). By using Quran as a filter rather than an eraser, we can appreciate the New Testament as an ‘extant vessel of divine message’.
The ultimate goal of this scholarly appreciation is to move the conversation from ‘suspicion’ to ‘reconciliation’. Alan Shlemon’s paper provides the ‘historical evidence’ that Injil addressed by Quran is none other than the New Testament Gospels. This dismantles the ‘Myth of the Lost Book’ which has served as a barrier for too long.
The reconciliatory framework provides the ‘Quranic logic’ to accept this historical reality. It argues that God’s guidance is not fragile; it is resilient and continuous. The Injil was not lost in a ‘Dark Age’; it was preserved by God through the Christian community until the arrival of Quran. By acknowledging this, we fulfil the ‘Common Word’ invitation of Surah 3:64. We recognise that the Injil and Quran are ‘harmonious movements in a single divine symphony’.
Alan Shlemon’s investigation is a vital catalyst for modern theological engagement. By demonstrating that Quran refers to a present, canonical Gospel tradition, he challenges the historical and apologetic myths of ‘total discontinuity’. Through the reconciliatory lens, his arguments reach their full academic and liberatory potential. We are no longer looking for a buried treasure in the sand; we are looking at the ‘Guidance and Light’ that has been with the People of the Book since the time of the Messiah.
Injil is not a lost book; it is a living scripture, one that Quran repeatedly affirms as being “with them” and actively present among the People of the Gospel (5:46, 5:47). Far from portraying it as vanished or corrupted beyond recognition, Quran commands that it be upheld, stood upon, and lived by (5:68), describing it as a source of guidance and light whose moral force remains operative (5:46). This affirmation is reinforced by the insistence that God’s revelations are not abandoned but continuously safeguarded within history, reflecting the divine attribute of preservation and faithfulness (15:9).
Through this synthesis, we rediscover a shared quest for truth and spiritual understanding, rooted in the continuity of divine guidance bestowed upon multiple communities (42:13). In this light, the character of God as Al-Hafiz, the Protector of His Word, stands vindicated — not as a selective guardian of one scripture alone, but as the faithful sustainer of all revelations sent for human moral uplift. The light of Injil, therefore, never failed or vanished; it endured within history, awaiting a more ethically awakened generation capable of recognising its presence and engaging it with humility, justice, and spiritual maturity (5:66, 57:27).
Why Quran Recognizes Gospel as a Living Scripture
The Holy Quran and Injil converge upon a shared ethical vision rooted in belief in God and accountability in the Hereafter. Both scriptures call humanity toward justice, benevolence, and the recognition of universal human dignity. Quran repeatedly asserts that the Injil is a source of guidance and light (5:46), present among the People of the Book (5:47), and deserving of moral engagement rather than dismissal. Its ethical core—compassion, mercy, honesty, and equitable treatment of others—resonates with the Gospel’s message of loving God and neighbour (3:48–49, 57:27).
Quran positions itself as Muhaymin, a guardian and criterion, to preserve the moral and spiritual essence of previous revelations (5:48). This safeguarding function does not negate the Injil but illuminates its teachings for contemporary audiences. By emphasising accountability to God and the Hereafter, both scriptures establish a framework in which human actions are measured by justice and righteousness (2:177, 16:90). Ethical life thus becomes a sacred struggle to uplift the oppressed, foster human brotherhood, and maintain peace (49:13, 5:8).
Equally, Quran affirms that God’s protection of His Word is continuous (15:9), ensuring that divine guidance in the Injil remained operative across centuries (42:13). This continuity refutes the notion of a ‘Lost Book’ while encouraging believers to recognise the unity of prophetic purpose: the pursuit of benevolence, human equality, and spiritual integrity (5:66, 57:27). By engaging with Injil alongside Quran, believers witness a harmonious ethical vision that transcends sectarian divisions, grounded in God-consciousness, moral accountability, and active striving for justice, mercy, and peace. In this light, Injil is neither lost nor inert; it is a living scripture whose ethical illumination persists, awaiting human hearts and minds willing to enact its moral and spiritual imperatives (5:68, 29:46).
Ultimately, the transition from viewing the Injil as a vanished artifact to recognizing it as a present and divinely affirmed scripture marks a profound shift from a theology of replacement to one of mutual recognition. The Holy Quran categorically affirms that Injil was endowed with guidance and light and served as a moral criterion for its community (5:46), just as revelation before it functioned as a source of ethical direction (5:44). By dismantling the enduring ‘Lost Book’ delusion, the Quranic discourse invites Muslims to rediscover the spiritual treasures embedded within the Gospels — the radical ethic of mercy, the uncompromising call to justice, and the deep God-conscious devotion exemplified by the Messiah—not as foreign intrusions, but as a shared inheritance rooted in the same divine source of illumination (42:13).
This affirmation builds an enduring bridge of affinity. It validates the historical and spiritual experience of the Christian community while simultaneously upholding Quran’s role as Muhaymin—a guardian, confirmer, and ethical overseer rather than a negator of earlier revelation (5:48). When the religious “other” is no longer imagined as possessing a fraudulent or phantom scripture, but rather a sacred vessel carrying the same primordial proclamation of divine oneness, justice, and mercy (21:92; 23:52), the foundation for a genuinely pluralistic engagement is laid. The interfaith encounter is thus transformed from a polemical battlefield into a shared sanctuary of reflection, reverence, and mutual respect.
This reconciliatory hermeneutic further elevates the invitation to a Common Word (Kalima Sawa) from a mere diplomatic appeal into a robust theological imperative grounded in revelation itself (3:64). By affirming the essential moral and spiritual messages of the Gospel, Quran fosters an affinity in which religious identity is defined not by competitive erasure of sacred history, but by a shared striving for justice, righteousness, and God-consciousness (2:62; 5:69). This is not a call toward the homogenization of faith traditions, but toward a divine symphony in which distinct scriptural voices retain their integrity while harmonizing in ethical purpose (49:13).
[V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language to Translate in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic
