What do you think?
Rate this book
The Qur’an and the Bible
In fact, the struggle between right and wrong, which began with Adam and Satan, still continues globally. If this is so, how do humans reach the True Religion by overcoming perverted beliefs?
- GenresReligionNonfiction
ebook
First published October 24, 2010
7 people are currently reading
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 21, 2024
I also received this book for free while visiting the Sultanahmet (Blue) Mosque in Istanbul.
What struck me most was how *familiar* his language was. I went to a Christian elementary school and there was a very particular way people would talk about other religions ("objectively" of course 😉). The quick desire to dismiss something "rationally" without really listening to *why* people believe what they do. His entire approach to Christianity came with such an Islamic lens that I found myself frustratedly thinking "but that's not the *point*! He has no concept of why my grandparents followed this their entire lives." (Ie. Emphasis on minute details and text as literal word of God vs meaning, authorship over messages, etc.). The way Tomor talks about the Bible and Christianity is the *exact* same way people at that school talked about Islam and the Quran, just in reverse.
One thing I was confused by is who is this book written *for*? Certainly not Christians, because he misses the mark for a lot, and dismisses other people's core convictions with remarkable carelessness.
Perhaps other muslims who want to be more sure of their own faith without actually delving into Christianity (similar to those Christians at my elementary school).
If anything, it's a great case study in how one faith can "rationalize away" another faith without digging into the actual communities that follow them.
Two stars because, even though I disliked it, it sure made me reflect.
What struck me most was how *familiar* his language was. I went to a Christian elementary school and there was a very particular way people would talk about other religions ("objectively" of course 😉). The quick desire to dismiss something "rationally" without really listening to *why* people believe what they do. His entire approach to Christianity came with such an Islamic lens that I found myself frustratedly thinking "but that's not the *point*! He has no concept of why my grandparents followed this their entire lives." (Ie. Emphasis on minute details and text as literal word of God vs meaning, authorship over messages, etc.). The way Tomor talks about the Bible and Christianity is the *exact* same way people at that school talked about Islam and the Quran, just in reverse.
One thing I was confused by is who is this book written *for*? Certainly not Christians, because he misses the mark for a lot, and dismisses other people's core convictions with remarkable carelessness.
Perhaps other muslims who want to be more sure of their own faith without actually delving into Christianity (similar to those Christians at my elementary school).
If anything, it's a great case study in how one faith can "rationalize away" another faith without digging into the actual communities that follow them.
Two stars because, even though I disliked it, it sure made me reflect.
July 27, 2024
Horrible book. As others here remarked, I also got it from the blue mosque in Istanbul and read it. It is full of contradictions, weird assumptions and stating of facts without any proof.
October 27, 2024
Very disappointed that with all the faiths of the world who go to Istanbul to see Aya Sofia and the gorgeous Blue Mosque that they would distribute such a divisive book. Initially I thought it was what brings Christianity and Islam together similar to Thich Nhat’s Hanh’s on a living Buddha, Living Christ but this one really is offensive, constantly showing what’s wrong with the Bible. I am surprised that they would allow such a book to be at mosques a base for millions of tourists/ visitors.
April 22, 2024
I got this book for free visiting the Sultan Ahmet mosque. The author has a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity and blatantly makes things up about religion. I still read the whole thing.
April 26, 2025
I collected this booklet while visiting many wonderful mosques in Turkey. While I'd have been similarly skeptical of a promotional booklet dealt out by say a Protestant evangelical church, I tried to read this with a beginner's mind; for the opening Islamic section, I did, but this became impossible for the incompetent polemics against Christianity.
The booklet relies on historical falsehoods and strawman criticism of the Bible as Bibliolatry-or-nothing or 'by scripture alone'; that is, it inappropriately applies Quranism onto the Bible, presenting this as sufficient refutation of the entire Christian religion.
The theology and history of Islam taught in the book interested me, but I now can't assume any of it is true until comparing it to competent Muslim scholarship.
An attempt to catalog the book's falsehoods and mistakes:
pg. 30 claims Constantine the Great held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to established the first official biblical cannon, but in fact canon was neither discussed nor established then.
pg 31 claims that the "priests" included on the council were "not registered or educated". While the ~300 bishops were of diverse backgrounds, the generalization is false. Saints Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, two extremely significant theologians and writers, were classically trained in philosophy, rhetoric, literature, and held clergy positions in their respective cities. Even the more rural bishops lacking formal education were vetted by their grasp of Scripture.
pg 32 claims that Arius (from whom arose the subordinationist doctrine of Arianism, deemed heretical) was excommunicated and executed for his dissidence. In fact, Arius was not only readmitted to the church through compromise, but died of gastrointestinal disease. Some vicious theological opponents prayed for his demise, or attributed his death to divine justice, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he was killed.
pgs. 35, 45 claim that the original New Testament ("revealed to prophet Jesus") was Hebrew—there exists no manuscript of a Hebraic New Testament—the earliest were Koine Greek with Aramaic sprinklings. Hebraic translation of the NT didn't appear until nearly the 10th century.
pg. 45 claims that the 27-book New Testament canon was established from among "hundreds of Bibles" during the Nicaea Consulate of 325. This is so intensely wrong that the rotten layers must be unraveled. The First Nicaea Consulate was primarily concerned with addressing the Christological doctrine of Arianism. Records of the Council lack any discussion of canon. New Testament canon developed gradually, starting in the 1st century and achieving a more crystallized consensus by the 5th century. This process involved consideration but ultimately rejection of ~50 texts
pgs. 49–57 attempt to invalidate Christianity by noting syntactic discrepancies between the Gospels: "God [will] not allow His Book to be changed". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian belief. Jesus Christ—not the Bible—is the Word of God. The Bible is not "God's Book" but a collection of divinely inspired texts bearing witness to extraordinary events, including the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.
"The Scriptures are inspired in all their parts, but inspiration is directed to the essential message, to the revelation of divine realities. The letter may sometimes be secondary to the spirit.”
— Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 17
Because Tomor is unwilling or unable to conceive of the validity of a religious text outside of it being God's own direct divine perfected speech, he necessarily cannot attack Christian theology in truth but only as a phantasm.
Tomor dismisses "today's Bible" as a mixture of dreams, legends, and eyewitness testimonies (pg. 113), after stating that Christianity was once a true religion (pg. 101); when could this ever have been, if a Christian is defined by believing in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which Islam explicitly denies? Surahs 3:3 and 5:46 state that God sent down the Gospels as a guide to mankind while Surahs 6:34, 6:115, and 10:64 state that nothing can alter God's words. Where are these original Gospels that were directly delivered by God and did not rely on human accounts of extraordinary events? I'm genuinely curious, but can only guess that they'd be said to be only those contents of the Gospel that overlap with the Quran, but even then the Gospels only ever were texts based on orally transmitted eyewitness accounts, which Tomor mocks as being below God's standard, so his point is self-refuting.
He concludes the book by stating that if Jesus truly were the Son of God, he "he would become God (!) and create a new universe with hundreds of galaxies instead of dealing with only a few Jews in this small world" (pg. 114), i.e. Ahmet Tomor implies he knows the mind of the unknowable infinite God enough to determine exactly what God would or would not do, or that Tomor's own imaginative fancies are equivalent to God's.
Muslims deserve better than to be represented by such rubbish in their masjids.
The booklet relies on historical falsehoods and strawman criticism of the Bible as Bibliolatry-or-nothing or 'by scripture alone'; that is, it inappropriately applies Quranism onto the Bible, presenting this as sufficient refutation of the entire Christian religion.
The theology and history of Islam taught in the book interested me, but I now can't assume any of it is true until comparing it to competent Muslim scholarship.
An attempt to catalog the book's falsehoods and mistakes:
pg. 30 claims Constantine the Great held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to established the first official biblical cannon, but in fact canon was neither discussed nor established then.
pg 31 claims that the "priests" included on the council were "not registered or educated". While the ~300 bishops were of diverse backgrounds, the generalization is false. Saints Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, two extremely significant theologians and writers, were classically trained in philosophy, rhetoric, literature, and held clergy positions in their respective cities. Even the more rural bishops lacking formal education were vetted by their grasp of Scripture.
pg 32 claims that Arius (from whom arose the subordinationist doctrine of Arianism, deemed heretical) was excommunicated and executed for his dissidence. In fact, Arius was not only readmitted to the church through compromise, but died of gastrointestinal disease. Some vicious theological opponents prayed for his demise, or attributed his death to divine justice, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he was killed.
pgs. 35, 45 claim that the original New Testament ("revealed to prophet Jesus") was Hebrew—there exists no manuscript of a Hebraic New Testament—the earliest were Koine Greek with Aramaic sprinklings. Hebraic translation of the NT didn't appear until nearly the 10th century.
pg. 45 claims that the 27-book New Testament canon was established from among "hundreds of Bibles" during the Nicaea Consulate of 325. This is so intensely wrong that the rotten layers must be unraveled. The First Nicaea Consulate was primarily concerned with addressing the Christological doctrine of Arianism. Records of the Council lack any discussion of canon. New Testament canon developed gradually, starting in the 1st century and achieving a more crystallized consensus by the 5th century. This process involved consideration but ultimately rejection of ~50 texts
pgs. 49–57 attempt to invalidate Christianity by noting syntactic discrepancies between the Gospels: "God [will] not allow His Book to be changed". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian belief. Jesus Christ—not the Bible—is the Word of God. The Bible is not "God's Book" but a collection of divinely inspired texts bearing witness to extraordinary events, including the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.
"The Scriptures are inspired in all their parts, but inspiration is directed to the essential message, to the revelation of divine realities. The letter may sometimes be secondary to the spirit.”
— Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 17
Because Tomor is unwilling or unable to conceive of the validity of a religious text outside of it being God's own direct divine perfected speech, he necessarily cannot attack Christian theology in truth but only as a phantasm.
Tomor dismisses "today's Bible" as a mixture of dreams, legends, and eyewitness testimonies (pg. 113), after stating that Christianity was once a true religion (pg. 101); when could this ever have been, if a Christian is defined by believing in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which Islam explicitly denies? Surahs 3:3 and 5:46 state that God sent down the Gospels as a guide to mankind while Surahs 6:34, 6:115, and 10:64 state that nothing can alter God's words. Where are these original Gospels that were directly delivered by God and did not rely on human accounts of extraordinary events? I'm genuinely curious, but can only guess that they'd be said to be only those contents of the Gospel that overlap with the Quran, but even then the Gospels only ever were texts based on orally transmitted eyewitness accounts, which Tomor mocks as being below God's standard, so his point is self-refuting.
He concludes the book by stating that if Jesus truly were the Son of God, he "he would become God (!) and create a new universe with hundreds of galaxies instead of dealing with only a few Jews in this small world" (pg. 114), i.e. Ahmet Tomor implies he knows the mind of the unknowable infinite God enough to determine exactly what God would or would not do, or that Tomor's own imaginative fancies are equivalent to God's.
Muslims deserve better than to be represented by such rubbish in their masjids.
July 30, 2025
This book was offered to my wife at the Hagia Sophia — and it’s truly problematic.
The strangest thing is: I can’t figure out who the intended audience is! It’s certainly not tourists from non-Muslim backgrounds, because no one wants to be accused of holding “perverted beliefs.” (Surely the author could have used terms like misguided, incomplete, or divergent instead?) And no one expects such a low-effort analysis of both holy books — the Qur’an and the Bible.
The author’s main thesis boils down to this: the Qur’an is consistent, while the Gospels contradict each other. For example, he points out that Luke and Matthew describe the same event differently — while conveniently forgetting that various surahs contradict each other as well. And in both scriptures, these differences make sense when you understand the context: The Gospels were written by different people using different sources. The Qur’an, although compiled from the same voice, came in different phases of early Islam, responding to different needs and challenges.
The author's other great theological weapon is: “It is written in my book, so your book must be wrong (and perverted).” That’s the exegetical equivalent of “My dad is stronger than your dad.” Honestly, when I was 10, I had more sophisticated theological discussions than this. Any atheist reader will find it amusing — watching a supposedly serious religious argument devolve into: “Your magical book is wrong because my magical book says so.”
Here are far better alternatives in my humble opinion — books that offer genuine exegesis, scholarly rigor, and theological insight:
- "The Study Quran" – Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al.; A massive annotated edition — like a Muslim version of the Study Bible. Excellent for comparing theological arguments with nuance and depth.
- "The Oxford Companion to the Bible" and "The Oxford Companion to the Qur’an"; Essential reference books for serious cross-referencing and contextual study.
- "A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue" – Mahmoud Ayoub; A respectful and sophisticated theological engagement with Christianity by a renowned Muslim scholar.
- "Major Themes of the Qur’an" – Fazlur Rahman; Offers thematic exegesis with occasional but thoughtful comparative remarks on biblical topics.
- "The Bible in the Qur'an: A Comparative Study" – Richter Bernhard; Traces how biblical stories are reimagined in the Qur’an, comparing theological emphasis with interfaith sensitivity.
- "Islam and the Bible: The Biblical Scriptures in the Light of the Qur’an" – Etienne Renaud, A secular academic perspective on how biblical material appears and is reinterpreted in the Qur’an.
With this short reading list, you’ll get Muslim, Christian, and secular perspectives, each offering strong analytical and exegetical depth. Far better than anything this shallow pamphlet attempted.
The strangest thing is: I can’t figure out who the intended audience is! It’s certainly not tourists from non-Muslim backgrounds, because no one wants to be accused of holding “perverted beliefs.” (Surely the author could have used terms like misguided, incomplete, or divergent instead?) And no one expects such a low-effort analysis of both holy books — the Qur’an and the Bible.
The author’s main thesis boils down to this: the Qur’an is consistent, while the Gospels contradict each other. For example, he points out that Luke and Matthew describe the same event differently — while conveniently forgetting that various surahs contradict each other as well. And in both scriptures, these differences make sense when you understand the context: The Gospels were written by different people using different sources. The Qur’an, although compiled from the same voice, came in different phases of early Islam, responding to different needs and challenges.
The author's other great theological weapon is: “It is written in my book, so your book must be wrong (and perverted).” That’s the exegetical equivalent of “My dad is stronger than your dad.” Honestly, when I was 10, I had more sophisticated theological discussions than this. Any atheist reader will find it amusing — watching a supposedly serious religious argument devolve into: “Your magical book is wrong because my magical book says so.”
Here are far better alternatives in my humble opinion — books that offer genuine exegesis, scholarly rigor, and theological insight:
- "The Study Quran" – Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al.; A massive annotated edition — like a Muslim version of the Study Bible. Excellent for comparing theological arguments with nuance and depth.
- "The Oxford Companion to the Bible" and "The Oxford Companion to the Qur’an"; Essential reference books for serious cross-referencing and contextual study.
- "A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue" – Mahmoud Ayoub; A respectful and sophisticated theological engagement with Christianity by a renowned Muslim scholar.
- "Major Themes of the Qur’an" – Fazlur Rahman; Offers thematic exegesis with occasional but thoughtful comparative remarks on biblical topics.
- "The Bible in the Qur'an: A Comparative Study" – Richter Bernhard; Traces how biblical stories are reimagined in the Qur’an, comparing theological emphasis with interfaith sensitivity.
- "Islam and the Bible: The Biblical Scriptures in the Light of the Qur’an" – Etienne Renaud, A secular academic perspective on how biblical material appears and is reinterpreted in the Qur’an.
With this short reading list, you’ll get Muslim, Christian, and secular perspectives, each offering strong analytical and exegetical depth. Far better than anything this shallow pamphlet attempted.
October 19, 2024
A loss of time, reading the booklet and a loss of energy and resources to print it. Wrong title. Comparable with the book "Dianetics" of Ron Hubbard.
A friend of mine got that booklet for free during a visit of the Aya Sofia Moschee and gave it to read.
It's sad to see on one hand, that many people are doing efforts for a better mutual ecumenical understanding between the religions, and then to see that book to be distributed to Istanbul's visitors, because it's just one more desperate attempt to explain with sometimes even schizophrenic logic, why other religions (here Christians and Jews) are wrong. In fact the author doesn't hesitate to use expressions like "perverted believes", "prophet Jesus", "the true Bible" etc, and wants to convince people to adhere to Islam by threatening with punishments if they wouldn't. God/Allah is not so. He wants us, loves us all, otherwise He wouldn't have created us. It makes no sense, to force somebody to believe and return this love in a specific formatted way because of fear. Luckily those times are over. You can't force a faith. It's by definition impossible. You can only convince, but not like that!
A friend of mine got that booklet for free during a visit of the Aya Sofia Moschee and gave it to read.
It's sad to see on one hand, that many people are doing efforts for a better mutual ecumenical understanding between the religions, and then to see that book to be distributed to Istanbul's visitors, because it's just one more desperate attempt to explain with sometimes even schizophrenic logic, why other religions (here Christians and Jews) are wrong. In fact the author doesn't hesitate to use expressions like "perverted believes", "prophet Jesus", "the true Bible" etc, and wants to convince people to adhere to Islam by threatening with punishments if they wouldn't. God/Allah is not so. He wants us, loves us all, otherwise He wouldn't have created us. It makes no sense, to force somebody to believe and return this love in a specific formatted way because of fear. Luckily those times are over. You can't force a faith. It's by definition impossible. You can only convince, but not like that!
July 22, 2025
Evidentemente no es el libro del año pero es interesante. Lo primero que debo decir es que me lo dieron gratis en Hagia Sofia (lo cual considero que es de admirar, regalar libros, aunque pretendan ser un tanto dogmáticos, siempre es una ventana al conocimiento).
Dado su carácter gratuito, la traducción es muy mejorable, así como las glosas explicativas.
Sin embargo, me ha resultado muy enriquecedor conocer el punto de vista del islam sobre ciertas cuestiones del cristianismo, en especial se centra en criticar la falta de rigurosidad y verdad del Nuevo Testamento.
Hay cuestiones que no me había planteado desde mi perspectiva de persona criada en una sociedad católica. Y, como atea, me sigue alucinando cómo la gente es capaz de defender SU única manera de entender la religión (la verdadera) a ultranza.
Dado su carácter gratuito, la traducción es muy mejorable, así como las glosas explicativas.
Sin embargo, me ha resultado muy enriquecedor conocer el punto de vista del islam sobre ciertas cuestiones del cristianismo, en especial se centra en criticar la falta de rigurosidad y verdad del Nuevo Testamento.
Hay cuestiones que no me había planteado desde mi perspectiva de persona criada en una sociedad católica. Y, como atea, me sigue alucinando cómo la gente es capaz de defender SU única manera de entender la religión (la verdadera) a ultranza.
November 11, 2025
As someone who has studied religious history and has an Islamic background I could understand what the author was trying to portray, but it could have been written better. I thought the book would be more centered around similarities of the two religions, instead was centered more through the Islamic lens.
People give it so much criticism for being biased but you picked it up at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, as did I, and are confused why it’s in an Islamic POV? *insert surprised pikachu meme* Obviously, these people haven’t read books written from a Christian POV because it’s the same as well except I’m not surprised when I read those books.
Overall, I think the book makes some interesting points and some things I did search to fact check. I wish the book could’ve included citations and been written through a more unified lens.
People give it so much criticism for being biased but you picked it up at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, as did I, and are confused why it’s in an Islamic POV? *insert surprised pikachu meme* Obviously, these people haven’t read books written from a Christian POV because it’s the same as well except I’m not surprised when I read those books.
Overall, I think the book makes some interesting points and some things I did search to fact check. I wish the book could’ve included citations and been written through a more unified lens.
February 1, 2024
I read this book. It should be forbidden. It is filled with lies and very intolerant towards Christianity. The author is clearly insane . I took this book when visiting the blue mosque in Istanbul because it was free. This book states that prophet Muhammad was illiterate but that he sent several letters. Letters that contain threats like "if you want security ,accept Islam ".He also writes that other religions are null and void but that during ancient times Christianity was the only religion of Allah . That's how he contradicts himself.
September 20, 2024
Distributed by free in some Istambul mosques.
Positive is that it was useful to me to get a sense of both Islam and Christianity history, as I'm not religious and not interested in those topics usually.
Negative is that the main goal of the author after the first informational chapters is to debunk the Bible by finding its plot-holes. While, in the other hand, it just takes very abstract sentences from the Quran and associates it to recent scientific discoveries in a very incoherent way.
Positive is that it was useful to me to get a sense of both Islam and Christianity history, as I'm not religious and not interested in those topics usually.
Negative is that the main goal of the author after the first informational chapters is to debunk the Bible by finding its plot-holes. While, in the other hand, it just takes very abstract sentences from the Quran and associates it to recent scientific discoveries in a very incoherent way.
January 23, 2022
Me esperaba una comparación más rigurosa. Con más datos objetivos y comparaciones más directas.
Pero no está mal, he aprendido cosas nuevas.
Pero no está mal, he aprendido cosas nuevas.
September 19, 2022
The book is clearly biased. Nevertheless, is an interesting read
August 7, 2024
3 stars! ✌🏻
The book was very interesting and I am pleased 😌
I really loved reading the history of my religion 🧕🏻
The book was very interesting and I am pleased 😌
I really loved reading the history of my religion 🧕🏻
June 6, 2025
mashallah
January 3, 2025
I’ve found this book randomly so I had no idea what to expect, but from the title I thought it will be more like a comparison of the two books. The book is more about praising Islam and criticizing Christianity, but at least the author is making that clear from the beginning. It was interesting to read about Christianity from Muslim’s point of view, but
I didn’t enjoy it much because I don’t like such dogmatic texts. I think the author cherry pics from history and parts of the Bible and Quran to make his points and he simplifies more comlex issues. I think this was written for other Muslims to confirm themselves in their beliefs.
I didn’t enjoy it much because I don’t like such dogmatic texts. I think the author cherry pics from history and parts of the Bible and Quran to make his points and he simplifies more comlex issues. I think this was written for other Muslims to confirm themselves in their beliefs.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews