Dear Omer,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm glad to see that you are willing to go on with this debate and I hope that we can keep this exchange fruitful. It took me some time to write this reply: it's very long, so take your time wading through it.

To start with my reply to your points, I'd like to say I'm not accusing anyone: I'm simply stating facts. Sometimes I express myself bluntly, but I don't mean to offend anyone: I just feel free to speak my mind openly and, as you'll find out yourself, not at all groundlessly. Moreover, I'd like to make it clear that you are not entitled to say that I'm confused either as to what Islam is or what the majority of the Moslems think about Christianity. If I were anyhow confused I'd not venture in a debate of this type. Do you think my references to Islam were confused? Frankly, I don't think you can say that.

The fact that you may know much about Christianity (which is something we shall soon be able to verify) does in no way imply that this knowledge is common patrimony of the Islamic community: quite the opposite is true. If you follow a debate in any Islamic chat room you'll ascertain how widespread ignorance is among the Moslems. The arithmetic argument against the Trinity is an example. I can only be happy you aren't using it, whereas your coreligionists often do.

As for Jesus and the Trinity, there is a linguistic and philological problem with the noun "person": this term is a calque (a loan translation) from the Latin noun "persona". Latin used to be the language of culture in Western Europe and much philosophical and theological speculation was written in that language throughout several centuries. I studied Latin for 5 years at school, but I know there are many people who aren't familiar with it and do not realize the problem with this technical term. I'm not sure of how many Moslems have a clue about what "persona" meant in Latin and how that word was used in different contexts. However, the point is completely missed if one isn't aware that "person", referred to the Trinity, stands for the Latin "persona" and it doesn't mean "human being", "individual": how should it when referred to God? "Human being" and "individual" are not the correct translations of that word and even less within a theological context. In Latin itself the closest term to "person" as "human being" and "individual" was homo, hominis (which gives "homme" in French, "hombre" in Spanish, "uomo" in Italian). Also take into account the fact that the majority of Christians do not consider God as a corporeal entity (but the Arians do and so do the Sunni Moslems), so the problem with the "persons" or "personae" of the Christian Godhead is a false one: it is a purely Islamic construction and misrepresentation of the Christian belief. Actually, it's the Islamic deity that is evidently anthropomorphic and personal.

As for Jesus' divinity, I'd like to ask you what the words "omnipotent" and "almighty" mean to you? If God is omnipotent he must be able to exist in different dimensions or forms at the same time. If he can't then he is not "omnipotent". God may decide to experience the frailty of the human condition and still be God. The Word (Logos) may incarnate itself, assume a human form and still exist as god. Jesus, as the Word, didn't drop his divine nature but went through the hardship and the limitation of the human condition in human form. The justness and holiness of Jesus' divinity were preserved (this is why he was sinless and resurrected from death); but his bodily condition also affected him and this is why he was born, grew up, suffered and died as a man. Jesus is considered God's Word manifested in the flesh in this world and his partly human status is a free self-limitation. That God should be considered greater than the Word manifested in human form is quite obvious, so where is the problem with verse Joh 14:28?

Joh 14:28  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Jesus as the Word says he's going to leave his inferior human condition in order to be reunited with God, as written at the beginning of John's Gospel, which I quote below. Consider Jesus' body as a means of revelation of the Word to the world. In any case the equality is not between two individuals, God and Jesus, simply because there aren't two individuals and the word "person" does not mean that, as I have said. God and Jesus aren't two distinct gods, but Jesus partakes of God's divine nature because he is the Word, although manifested to mankind in a form that can be directly experienced.

This is how Paul interpreted the end of Jesus' mission and why the Word was revealed in the flesh:

Rom 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death (i.e. the Mosaic Law).
Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

The coexistence of both a human and divine natures in Jesus are explained differently by different Christian sects, yet the beginning of John's Gospel is one for all:

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:17  For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Going on on the topic of Christ's nature, we have to face the fact that the matter becomes quite complicated and again I beg leave to doubt that any Moslem, including yourself, is simultaneously familiar with the theological positions of the Adoptionists, Monophysites, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Episcopalians, Arians and many other churches and sects still extant or now extinct. Please notice that when I say "many others" I really mean quite a lot of persuasions with different views on Christ's nature. As far as the Christian Godhead is concerned, the problem does not lie in the Trinity itself but in the nature attributed to Jesus. The Trinity comes into question only when a divine nature is attributed to Jesus. The Arians (like today's Jehova's Witnesses) have no Trinity because their christology is different and attribute a different origin to Jesus, which is not divine, but rather angelical  (exactly like in the Qur'ân, as I explain below). We also encounter the problem of the Holy Ghost, the ruhu 'l qudus of Islam. We'll be dealing with the Holy Ghost in detail later on in the debate, if you care to.

You quoted from John's Gospel. I am very pleased that you chose those verses from the Gospel, because they testify the enormous difference between Christianity and Islam. The differences do not just lie in the Crucifixion and, as I stated above, the Trinity. If it were so, all Jehova's Witnesses might become Moslems or see Islam favourably, because a lot of the Islamic christology goes together well with the Arian christology. Obviously they don't and deny any prophetic status to Muhammad. Yet the similarities between Arianism and Islam are visible to anybody with a bit of knowledge about Christian heresies. And this point was evident to St. John Damascene who, around 730 AD, wrote:

These [the Arabs, whom John calls Hagarenes and Ishmaelites] , then, were idolaters and worshippers of the morning star and Aphrodite whom in fact they called Chabar in their own language, which means "great." So until the times of Heraclius they were plain idolaters. From that time till now a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Muhammad (Mamed), who, having happened upon the Old and the New Testament and apparently having conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy. And after ingratiating himself with the people by a pretence of piety, he spread rumours of a scripture (graphe) brought down to him from heaven. So, having drafted some ludicrous doctrines in his book, he handed over to them [to the Arabs/Hagarenes/Ishmaelites] this form of worship.

In that Christian scholar's opinion, a certain Muhammad had simply founded a sect, borrowing literary material from the Bible and some dogmatic conjectures about Jesus from the Arians. This is basically what the religion of Qur'ân is: simplified Judaism, as Sigmund Freud once defined it, with some additional Messianism, Arian christology and the typical Islamic aggressive ill-will toward the non-Moslems.

First of all there is something very important to say concerning the difference in style between the Gospels, which are narratives, and the Qur'ân, which is a disorderly compilation of texts. The synoptic Gospels are biographies and are consistent stories with a beginning and an end. This can be said of all the books in the Bible, excepting the ones which are written in a particular style: for instance, as a collection of sayings (the Proverbs) or liturgic texts (the Psalms). It is pointless to excerpt a couple of lines from a larger Biblical passage in order to support your views. This may be good tafsir practice to give some kind of meaning to a word or verse in the Qur'ân, which is as logically ordered as a scrapbook whose pages have been thrown together and shuffled. The tafsir does not work too well with the Gospels, as you will see below, when I put your quotations from the Gospels back into their original context. The Gospels are rather easy to read, but the Qur'ân is not, because of the style in which it is written (or, rather, due to its total lack of any style). To see how puzzling some portions of the Qur'ân actually are I'd suggest you should read Christoph Luxenberg's "Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran" (The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Qur'ân). Unfortunately, the book is in German and I don't know whether it has been translated into English yet. Even if you shouldn't be satisfied with Luxenberg's reconstructions it is a plain fact that the obscure parts of the Qur'ân he is trying to interpret are too many for a book that claims to be clear (Qr 5:15; 6:59; 10:61; 16:103; 27:75; 34:3; 36:12). Together with the fact that the Qur'ân has no context whatsoever, its obscurity is the main reason why the Qur'ân is "interpreted" and not "translated": even when you read it in Arabic you still have to interpret it. Tafsir interpretation of the Qur'ân would not exist if the Qur'ân was a comprehensible text. An Arab who reads that book still has to interpret it, too, because no Arab speaks Koranic Arabic and most probably no living soul has ever spoken it. However, as I've said above, a stretched and twisted tafsir-like interpretation of the Gospels is unnecessary: let's just stick to the context of the Gospels.

What does John 18:20 really mean? Jesus had been speaking in his Father's name from chapter 17 and said:

Joh 17:1  After Jesus had said this, he looked up to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you.
Joh 17:2  For you have given him authority over all humanity so that he might give eternal life to all those you gave him.

John 18:20 is a fragment of a longer sermon which is delivered just before the events that are about to happen are described in chapter 18. In it we are told that Judas was leading the Temple guards to the place where Jesus met his disciples and taught them. I suggest your going through chapters 16 and 17 so as to verify that and, in passing, what the difference between Islam and Christianity really is, besides the well-known dogmatic clashes. Anyhow, below is the beginning of chapter 18.

Joh 18:1  After Jesus had said this, he went with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered.
Joh 18:2  Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place because Jesus often met there with his disciples.
Joh 18:3  So Judas took a detachment of soldiers and some officers from the high priests and the Pharisees and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.

The above verses are about the moments before Jesus was lead to the High Priest and goes on as follows:

Joh 18:19  Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his own teaching.
Joh 18:20  Jesus answered him, "I have spoken publicly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue or in the temple, where all Jews meet together, and I have said nothing in secret.
Joh 18:21  Why do you question me? Question those who heard what I said. These are the people who know what I said."
Joh 18:22  When he said this, one of the officers standing nearby slapped Jesus on the face and said, "Is that any way to answer the high priest?"
Joh 18:23  Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Jesus was telling his interrogators that he had nothing to hide, that he had neither plotted nor schemed against anyone. All those who had listened to his preaching could confirm his words, so that questioning him in that way was useless. This is the meaning of the verse you quoted.

Now let's consider the topic of the crucifixion, because it is directly connected with the verse in question. As the traditional account goes, there were two charges against Jesus. He was accused of being a seditionist and also a blasphemer. The former charge proved to be a very expedient accusation. In fact Jesus had entered Jerusalem riding an ass. The ass is a princely symbol: if you happen to read "Ancient Judaism" by Max Weber you will find this point confirmed from an historical point of view. In Jesus' case, riding the ass also implied his Messiahship, as from the Old Testament:

Zec 9:9  Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just*, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (King James Version)

In the Gospels we find the same verse reported:

Mat 21:1  When they came near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples on ahead and
Mat 21:2  said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you. At once you will find a donkey tied up and a colt with it. Untie them, and bring them to me.
Mat 21:3  If anyone says anything to you, tell him, 'The Lord needs them,' and that person will send them at once."
Mat 21:4  Now this happened to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet when he said,
Mat 21:5  "Tell the daughter of Zion, 'Look, your king is coming to you! He is humble** and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt of a donkey."
Mat 21:6  So the disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them.
Mat 21:7  They brought the donkey and the colt and put their coats on them, and he sat upon them.
Mat 21:8  Many people in the crowd spread their own coats on the road, while others began cutting down branches from the trees and spreading them on the road.
Mat 21:9  Both the crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed him kept shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! How blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven!" (International Standard Version)

* and ** [At "just" and "humble", you have "tsaddiq" (righteous) in Hebrew and "praús" (meek) in Greek, the latter rendition in accord with the Septuagint].

Consider those verses in the light of those you quoted from John: Jesus had overtly declared to be the Messiah and had done that before all the people of Jerusalem. Everyone was aware of who he had said he was. If his had been a crime it had been flagrant. There were Jews who welcomed Jesus and hailed him as the Messiah Son of David. This is why the Jewish priests wanted the Romans to execute him. Jesus had declared himself king and had made public display of his royal messianic status, therefore the Jewish priests expected the Roman authorities to condemn him, because he had defied the authority of the Roman Emperor, who was the one who could appoint local governors. The acronym INRI that may appear on crosses is Latin and means Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (Mat 27:11-37; Mar 15:2-26; Luk 23:3-38; Joh 18:33-19:21) and those were the words with which Jesus was scoffed at: the King of the Jews in the line of David, the title he'd been accused of having usurped. The Romans executed Jesus for sedition while the Jewish clergymen thought they had kept their hands clean in the eyes of the people: they were happy to have eliminated a blasphemous heretic who could have endangered their power. Jesus' death is explained as sacrificial within the Christian theological context (a point rejected by Islam), but historically speaking it was a political assassination. To the Christians, Jesus' death makes sense theologically and historically at the same time. What your religion compels you to believe about Jesus is not only against the Gospels, but also against history.

From the words in the Gospels it is clear that Jesus was perfectly aware of what he was going to face and he made no mystery about it. He perfectly knew things would end up in this tragic way:

Mat 26:39  Going on a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed, "O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not what I want but what you want."

Mar 14:36  He kept repeating, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I want but what you want."

Luk 22:42  "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me. Yet not my will but yours be done."

The Gospels read that Jesus knew he had to meet his fate:

Luk 22:44  And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Do you think Jesus' Apostles falsified the whole story and invented the crucifixion with all the details about it when nothing of that took place? The Gospels are unanimous on that. Fiction? Falsification? The crucifixions were public executions and the crucified were publicly displayed for everyone to see. The agony of the condemned was a horrid show that could last for several days and was used as a deterrent. The worst criminals and the rebels were crucified and dying on the cross was a shameful death. But the crucifixion of Jesus poses a problem for the Moslems because it isn't only the Christians who state that Jesus was crucified: also the Jews claim the selfsame thing and they cannot recognize Jesus' Messiahship just because of what is written in Deuteronomy:

Deu 21:22  And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree*:
Deu 21:23  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

*["tree" is " 'ets " which also may mean "wood".]

So, in few words, the Gospels speak of the crucifixion and the Jews confirm it by not accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, since he was a man cursed by God according to Deuteronomy. The fact that a book written some several hundred years later denies the crucifixion is theologically and historically irrelevant. Neither the Jews nor the Christians have ever considered the Qur'ân a holy book. From both a Jewish and Christian point of view, the Qur'ân is a collection of blasphemies. Moreover, the Qur'ân is supposed to confirm what is contained in the Gospels and the Old Testament, but it fails precisely at that and not only as far as the crucifixion is concerned. There is no external or logical support to what is claimed in that book: the Moslems claim that the Qur'ân should be regarded as a "miracle" in itself, but this is something that only the Moslems believe and no others do. The mere fact that it is possible to deny the heavenly origin of the Qur'ân is enough evidence that it is far from being a wonder-book. A miracle ought to be such in everyone's eyes, but if it is not, what kind of miracle is it?

As for the inimitability of the Qur'ân I've read enough literary works to say that the Qur'ân is hardly better than the worst gothic novel. I do not mean to offend you by saying that: it's my honest opinion. I've read it in many translations and heard it chanted in Arabic on satellite TV, both from Shi'as and Sunnis and I still wonder what is so inimitable about it. If you could point out some of its extraordinary features to me so that I may take back what I've said I'd be even grateful to you. To my mind, although I am not a Moslem, Shah Isma'il Khatai's mystic poems are far superior to the Qur'ân and so are Jalal ud-Din Rûmî's. Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy" is a masterpiece both in content and structure. I could mention Milton and Goethe. Even Friedrich Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is more enlightening than the Qur'ân. There is more wisdom in a single line of a Buddhist sutra than in any koranic sura. So what is so special about the Qur'ân? In my opinion what makes that book special is just the belief of the many Moslems like you who think it is God's own Word. When one has heard it said over and over again since childhood, one eventually believes it. Nevertheless, what you are trained to consider true is not necessarily objectively true.

As for your quotation of John 8:29, you wrote: John 8:29 ”The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him. Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him”

You have quoted two verses (29 and 30) as one. I'm going to give you the Greek original text with a word by word rendition of verse 29.

Joh 8:29  και (1) ο πεμψας (2) με (3) μετ εμου (4) εστιν (5) ουκ (6) αφηκεν (7) με (8) μονον (9) ο πατηρ (10) οτι (11) εγω (12) τα αρεστα αυτω (13) ποιω (14) παντοτε (15)

and (1) he who sent (2) me (3) with me (4) is (5). not (6) left (7) me (8) alone (9) the father (10), because (11) I (12) the things pleasing him (13) do (14) always (15).

Now let's place the verse back into its context:

Joh 8:23  He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24  That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins."
Joh 8:25  Then they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus told them, "What have I been telling you all along?
Joh 8:26  I have much to say about you and to condemn you for. But the one who sent me is truthful, and what I have heard from him I declare to the world."
Joh 8:27  They didn't realize that he was talking to them about the Father.
Joh 8:28  So Jesus told them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority. Instead, I speak only what the Father has taught me.
Joh 8:29  Moreover, the one who sent me is with me. The Father has never left me alone because I always do what pleases him."

You also quoted two other verses. Very interestingly you quoted from the Passion according to Luke (Luke 22:42, Webster's Bible). If you do not believe that Jesus was crucified, why are you quoting that very verse? The cup Jesus wants his Father to take away from him is his terrible death, but if you think that he never died what kind of argumentation is yours? If there was no crucifixion there was no agony, no suffering and no Passion. Then why quote from a passage which you imply is falsified? The Moslems state the Bible is a corrupted book, but on merely dogmatic grounds, in the effort to preserve the credibility of the Qur'ân. Now, if the story of the crucifixion is a corruption of the original text why do you think that precisely that verse is sound and why do you discard the others? Because you are a Moslem and you can't do otherwise? Is it because of what your religion compels you to believe? I have quoted the same verse above, alongside with those from Matthew and Mark. Is it a case of concurrent corruption?

The verse that deals with Jesus' cry to God from the cross is another interesting point. If you don't believe that Jesus was crucified why are you using those words spoken from the cross to prove that he was not crucified? Don't the four Gospels unanimously agree on Jesus' crucifixion? If you think someone else was on the cross, how do you think you can prove it by basing yourself on those words with no other evidence from the Gospels? Is there any more reliable evidence in the Qur'ân? No, there isn't as you'll see below. And in any case, the Qur'ân is supposed to have been written over 700 years after Jesus' death and the oldest copy of the book you have now is even more recent (from around the 10th century, may-be later), so what is contained in the Qur'ân hardly matters. You are producing a fallacious argument: you are starting from the point that Jesus was not crucified, while that is exactly what you have to prove and you cannot. As I have written above, both the Jews and the Christians say Jesus was crucified. It absolutely does not matter what the Qur'ân reads about that episode: the burden of proof lies on those who believe the Qur'ân contains the truth: Muhammad, who is dead, and his followers. Consider the following three points, though, which are the trap you are ensnared in:

1.   The Qur'ân is supposed to confirm what is written in the Bible, but it too seldom does so, therefore the Moslems are compelled to say the Bible is corrupt. But there are two main problems:

a.   Textual corruption must be proved philologically, NOT dogmatically. Why should non-Moslems accept Islamic dogmas?

b.   The second is the degree of corruption: the Moslems prefer to think the corruption of the Bible is partial, because there are lots of things in the Qur'ân that rely on the Bible as a source of confirmation.

Unfortunately, when it comes to textual corruption, you use no philological arguments. There's no reason why one shouldn't think that the Bible is totally corrupt from the first page to the last. If the Bible were either wholly or partially corrupt you could throw away your Qur'ân as well, because no-one can decide arbitrarily what is good and what is not. What is good for you isn't necessarily true: you have to prove it's true. If I say the Qur'ân is a corrupted book, will you be able to prove convincingly that it's not?

2.   Muhammad declared he was receiving revelations and verses of a heavenly book from Jibril, but he was never able to prove he was a prophet. This is why the Jewish tribes rejected him and he had to massacre them. There was no way of proving Muhammad was a prophet in those days as there's none nowadays. Again it is your choice to believe so. Who authored the Qur'ân? Allah? Muhammad? Somebody else? Try to find out and you'll end up realising the third option is the one that can be chosen.

3.   The Moslems are instructed to believe the Qur'ân is God's Word. They are trained to think they are the ones to possess the "written" truth, so they also think the rest of the world is wrong, because no-one else has the same truth as they have. But no-one can prove the Qur'ân is God's Word: you choose to believe that, but it's only your own choice. The fact is that whatever you may believe is your personal opinion: it's not the truth, no matter how many people share your views.

In short, you cannot prove the corruption of the Bible; you cannot prove that there's a relationship between your sacred book and Allah or Muhammad (you cannot even reliably prove their existence and you avoided to prove that in your response); you cannot prove you are on the "right side": your opinions about god and religion are confined to your personal experience, environment and education, which cannot change what Islam is when examined critically. But there'a also a problem that has nothing to do with the religious ideas you were taught to believe in: since you preferred to avoid the topic of God's existence, how do you think you can prove your Qur'ân has a divine origin?

Let's consider the Passion once again because you said Jesus' prayers used always to be answered. When in the Gospels he is reported to be asking for the cup to be removed from him, Jesus does not really ask for anything: he does not implore God that his life should be spared, but, rather, that everything should be accomplished according to his Father's will even if it is a heinous torment what is going to befall him. Jesus' prayer is about surrendering to his Father's will although his wish may be different. The glorification of the Son is in his martyrdom and resurrection. In what else should it be? In an ascension to heaven that no-one would witness. Jesus' courage as a man lies exactly in abiding by his Father's will. Let's consider another point: the Moslems say that it would besmirch God's majesty to beget a son. Yet Allah's majesty remains intact despite the fact that he can pick out a hapless fellow from a bunch and have him nailed to the cross instead of Jesus. How just can Allah be setting up a make-believe crucifixion of Jesus? How just can Allah be if he substituted the victim and caused everybody to think that it was Jesus who was crucified? Why did Allah not raise Jesus up to heaven before everyone's eyes and avoid that an unknown man should undergo such terrible torture? Are you sure your Allah is a just god? Is your Allah really majestic?

I find your interpretation of Qr 4:157 rather problematic and I've told you yours is a "petitio pricipii". You are collecting dubious clues to support what you take for granted. The substitution theory is just one Islamic theory on the crucifixion, just because the verse is not clear at all: you MUST interpret it to come up with your own conjecture, because a word by word translation will lead you nowhere. Here is an excerpt from the internet page you weren't able to open:

wa means:  And, also, but, whilst.
 
lakin  means: But, still, nevertheless.

shubbiha  means: To be made like; A likeness or similitude.
This could refer to: A likeness or similitude (of Jesus), or
                                 A likeness or similitude (of Killing), or
                                 A likeness or similitude (of Crucifixion), or
                                 A likeness or similitude (of Killing & Crucifixion)

lahum  means: (Was made) for them.

A vivid imagination is necessary to be able to found the substitution theory on this chunk of verse. The closest conjecture to the Islamic (unfounded) dogma that can be made up is the "something-like-that" theory, which is clearly meaningless: anything can be more or less like anything else. But the substitution theory is something many Moslem and non-Moslem translators won't even venture into, because they know it is NOT in the Koranic text at all. Here are a  few examples for you:

[...] We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. (M. M. Pickthal; no substitution theory).

[...] "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. (A. Yusuf Ali; no substitution theory).

[...] Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. (M. H. Shakir; (like Isa) is Shakir's additon, it's not in the Qur'ân. The verse remains unclear because the English rendition is (intentionally?) confusing).

[...] `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it. (M. Sher Ali. This translation does not conform with the substitution theory at all).

[...] "Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God." Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him. (J. M. Rodwell; partial-substitution theory, that's to say the crucifixion of his "likeness", not of a look-alike). This is similar to the Christian Docetic/Gnostic view. Since Isa is the word of Allah and a spirit from Him [Qr 4:171] it is impossible to crucify him).

[...] ‘Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God,’...but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure! (E.H. Palmer. No substitution theory: "similitude" clearly refers to the scene that the people thought they were witnessing, but that was actually an illusion).

I could go on quoting from translations that do not support Isa's substitution theory just because the Qur'ân is not clear about it and no objective and honest translator would want to support any sectarian confessional view. The wahhabi Qur'âns printed in Saudi Arabia offer a very free interpretation that helps the sect that rules the country to spread their theological views and you are probably sticking to that unawares.

The Qur'ân reads that the Jews did not crucify Jesus and this is again a very interesting point. In fact the verse we have been examining mentions the Jews, who are being targeted as unbelievers from verse 4:150 onwards. All the words in the dialogues are obviously fictional, but the gist is easy to get. I say they are fictional because the Jews are supposed to say or have said: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger", but the Jews who wanted him dead never thought for a moment that Jesus was the Messiah and they have never had any god named Allah (such was called the moon-god Hubal in Mecca). They didn't even think he was a prophet and they still don't to this very day! Although there are several problematic points (the Jews of Moses were actually Hebrews and Judaism is just one late evolution of Hebraism), the very problem with the Jews seems to be that they reject some prophets. But they only rejected Muhammad, who was unable to support his claims and persecuted them. A part of them had also rejected the Messiah some centuries earlier and  they continued to live by the Torah. I've shown above why the Jews cannot accept the Messiahship of Jesus. Even if they did accept Jesus there is no reason why they should accept Muhammad as well. If the Jews ever rejected any prophets in the past it would be only fair to consider why and whom, but the Qur'ân is silent about it. This accusation is unsubstantiated and only instrumental in fuelling hatred against non-Moslems. Please, notice that the Moslems reject ALL prophets from Moses to Jesus: they mouth acknowledgment of their prophetic status, but they won't accept their teachings. The Moslems don't even follow the Qur'ân: the Islamic tradition relies exclusively on other later literature: the tafsir, the ahâdith and the sira. You know of Muhammad only from very late sources: Bukhari, ibn Ishaq, Waqidi and Tabari, just to mention a few. Islam is for the best part non-Koranic, that's to say it's not based on what you believe to be the Word of Allah.

Let's go back to the crucifixion. My opinion is that Jesus' death and the Jews are mentioned in this passage with the clear purpose of summoning them to Islam's cause. So what is the meaning of the obscure verse? Here are my alternative interpretations not based on the "fantastic" substitution:

1.   The Jews neither killed nor crucified Jesus. In fact it was the Romans who executed him at the instigation of the Sanhedrin. To think that the all Jews killed Jesus is therefore a mistake.

2.   The Jews did not kill Jesus: according to the Islamic dogma of qadar everything is foreordained, so it was in God's plan that Jesus should die and  the Jews are only an instrument in his hands. The Jews are therefore not guilty.

3.   The Jews did not kill Jesus: since Jesus was God's Word and a spirit/soul from him (Qr 4:171) he miraculously appeared (shubbiha) to be fully human, but he was not. His crucifixion was a mirage. Jesus never really hung from the cross, therefore the Jews can accept him as the Messiah (despite Deu 21:22-23) and recognize Muhammad as a prophet who is bringing this "truth" to them.

My favourite interpretation is the last one. It is the one that makes some sense within the Qur'ân, while all the other traditional explanations are just a heap of non-sense. This version of Jesus' crucifixion is the same as that given by Gnostic, Valentinian and Docetic Christians, so that whoever wrote the Qur'ân was saying nothing new, but was following an ancient heretic or esoteric tradition. The only original thing in the Koranic christology is the mix of theological borrowings: the virginal birth of Jesus is taken from orthodox Christianity (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and several other churches); Jesus' createdness comes from Arianism; Jesus' make-believe crucifixion derives from Gnosticism and Docetism; the stress on the (probably only apparent) human nature of Jesus is borrowed from a part of Judeo-Christianity, the Paulicians and the Nestorians. The fact that these borrowings don't go together is another question. For example, there cannot be a creation of Jesus and his virgin birth; the Jews cannot be called murderers of prophets (Qr 2:87), while Jesus somehow escaped the crucifixion.
.
Now let's come to the problem with the Word of God. You have stated that Jesus is the Word of God in the sense that he was created by Allah's decree [Qr 2:117; 3:47; 16:40; 19:35; 36:82: 40:68].So you must be referring especially to verse 19:35, because the other verses do not mention Jesus and the divine command in either direct or indirect connection. Let's try to see if the words can fit in some kind of context.

Qr 2:116 They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.
Qr 2:117 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He
decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. (A. Yusuf Ali)

In this case the problem is not whether Allah has begotten a son or not, since everything belongs to him and everything witnesses this fact just because he is the owner of the Creation [Qr 1:2, where Allah is rabb al alamîna]. Let me make it clear that the Christians do not think that God "begets" sons. However, I frankly don't read a condemnation of the orthodox Christian dogma of Jesus' sonship exactly here, but rather the usual celebration of Allah's almightiness: Allah is so powerful that he can simply say "Be!" and something is created out of nothing. This is obviously a metaphor: God doesn't need to pronounce any magic formula in order to create something. If God wills that something should be made, the question is one of will, not of which words he should use. Do you really think that Allah's "kun" somehow echoes through the universe in Arabic or in any other language? Can Allah create without uttering "Be!"?

Qr 3:47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is! (A.Yusuf Ali)

Here we see the angel speaking to Mary and telling here that she is about to conceive a baby. She replies that, since she is a virgin, she cannot become pregnant. The same account is found in Luke's Gospel.

Luk 1:34 Then said Mary to the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The event is the same in both the Qur'ân and Luke's Gospel, but in Luke Gabriel says that it  is by the power of the Holy Ghost that Mary will conceive Jesus, that is God will perform a miracle by simply overshadowing (επισκιασει) the woman with his manifested power. Please, notice that the Holy Ghost is not Gabriel/Jibril and that the angel himself calls Jesus the Son of God. Just to make things clearer, the orthodox Christian dogma considers Mary a  virgin before, during and after the conception. What can be gathered from the Greek version is that God in the form of the Holy Ghost will descend over Mary, cast a "shadow" (σκια)  on her and the miracle will happen. In the Qur'ân once again the power of Allah is exalted: he does whatever he pleases because he may just say "Be!" and what he wants comes into existence. However, there is no connection between this "Be!" and Jesus: Jesus is not Allah's "Be!", rather he is somehow made to come to life by Allah by divine decree or plan: according to the doctrine of qadar everything is foreordained, so Jesus' birth must have been decreed long before he was born. Again there is a deed that has to do with the divine will, not with that peculiar verbal form "Be!".

Qr 16:40 For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, "Be", and it is. (A. Yusuf Ali)

The verse above is again about Allah's power to resurrect the dead (Qr 16:38) and bestow his mercy (Qr 16:41 onwards). In this case, as we have seen, Allah's "Be!" resurrects the dead. Are the resurrected ones Allah's word as well? I've never read that in any article or book about Islam, so also in this case we are dealing with Allah's power, poetically represented by his verbal command "Be!". Please, also notice in this verse how Allah first "wills" and then "speaks", that is "acts". Again we have just Allah's will and the uttering of the word is metaphorical and signifies that no man can create anything just by saying "Be!", while Allah can work great miracles, even without saying anything.

Qr 36:81 Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Aye, that He is! for He is the All-Wise Creator,
Qr 36:82 But His command, when He intendeth a thing, is only that He saith unto it: Be! and it is.
Qr 36:83 Therefor Glory be to Him in Whose hand is the dominion over all things! Unto Him ye will be brought back. (M. Pickthall)

The Qur'ân reads that Allah created the heavens and the earth, and such is his might that he can simply utter a little word and the things he intends to create become real. That "Be!" again is there to signify the power of Allah, because as it is written in the Qur'ân the creation took place in different stages: Qr 2:29, 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 41:9 onwards (A. Yusuf Ali / M. Pickthall). Do you mean Allah was continuously repating "Be! Be! Be! Be!..." all the time? Considering the dogma of Islam according to which the world is preserved and created endlessly through and as signs (ayah) to mankind, does that mean that Allah must be uttering "Be!" at every moment? In order to create the world continuously in our human dimension, Allah is subjected to the course of time in this great cosmic process: could you determine the time interval between any of his commands and the following one? Considering that in our human dimension an incalculable number of events takes place at the same time, is one single "Be!" command good for many different things at the same time or not? How many other things, creatures and events were created when Jesus was born? Were they all equally God's Word? What about the Qur'ân? Is it Allah's word because it was created by decree? I would like you to answer this last question, please.

Qr 40:67 He it is Who created you from dust, then from a drop (of seed) then from a clot, then bringeth you forth as a child, then (ordaineth) that ye attain full strength and afterward that ye become old men - though some among you die before - and that ye reach an appointed term, that haply ye may understand.
Qr 40:68 He it is Who quickeneth and giveth death. When He ordaineth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. (M. Pickthall)

The verses above make your point problematic. In fact Allah's command "Be!" would have to be here understood as used to "create" all men and eventually to take their lives. Does that mean we are all Allah's Word? Are we Allah's word both when we're alive and when we're dead? Are we all Jesus-like? Can I say of myself I'm Allah's kalima and a ruh from him? To my mind the "Be!" command is once again just a rhetorical way of expressing Allah's power as life and death giver and since the Qur'ân is simply a poetical work, this literary theme is exploited whenever and wherever need be. The fact that some Moslem theologians may have wanted to see in it more than there actually was, only points to the necessity of reconsidering some stale, antiquated doctrinal positions that make the dogmas of your religion not just absurd, but even unsustainable.

And now the crux, the verse that you may think supports the idea that Isa is the word of Allah in the sense that Isa was created by means of the magic formula "kun".

19:33 And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.
19:34 Such is Isa, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.
19:35 It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is. (M. H. Shakir)

What I've said above is still valid here. As you can see there is no relationship between Allah's command and Isa, because the verse very simply reads that when Allah makes a decision he immediately acts. I'd like to point out that according to Western exegesis these very verses are considered a late addition to the Qur'ân, due to their polemical bias and the problem with Jesus' sonship broached here.

In few words I think that you have misunderstood Qr 4:171. Not only does the verse say that Isa is "his word" (kalimatuhu), namely Allah's, but it also goes on to say Isa is a spirit/soul from him (rûhun minhu). Jibril is also the ruhu 'l Qudus "spirit/soul of the Holy (One)". How many souls/spirits does Allah have? What kind of relationship is there between Isa and Jibril, considering that both are souls/spirits from him? Take a look at the following verses:

Qr 19:16 And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East,
Qr 19:17 And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
Qr 19:18 He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. (M. Pickthall)

If one compares Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Pickthall's translations one cannot but be stunned. The spirit/soul of Allah takes on a human shape and gives a faultless child to Mary. Interesting, isn't it? Whose son is Jesus, then? Why is he called "Allah's Word" and a "soul/spirit from him"? Are you aware of what the Qur'ân really teaches about Jesus? But there's more:

Qr 19:21 He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. (M. Pickthall)

Jesus is Allah's "revelation" for mankind: a living ayat (âyatan is the Arabic word in the text) of divine mercy (rahmatan minnâ), his Word, the kalima and not just the result of the command "Be!": Allah does not need to say anything if he decrees something. And in fact in this passage that "Be!" is not mentioned, because all had been decided beforehand ("it is a thing ordained").

And now let's see the verses you have quoted from Paul's letters and Revelation. I'd start from the Revelation, which is a cryptic book, which has been interpreted in various forms at different times. The verse reads as follows:

Rev 3:14  And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I don't know how to identify "the Amen" with Jesus as you do; but since you do, I will base myself on your own interpretation. Yet, whatever your own interpretation of the verse in Revelation may be, it finally contradicts your interpretation of the Qur'ân. Let's see why and use the Greek text:

Rev 3:14  και τω αγγελω της εν λαοδικεια εκκλησιας λαοδικεων γραψον ταδε λεγει ο αμην ο μαρτυς ο πιστος και αληθινος η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου

What is translated as "beginning" in English is the Greek word αρχη, which means both "principle" and "beginning". If the Amen is Jesus and he is "the principle of the creation", then he can be understood as the divine source, the prime reason, the fundamental rule governing the creation. If the Amen is "the beginning of the creation" then Jesus is either the origin of the creation (same as above) or the first creature. If he's the first creature, then he must have preceded the creation, which contradicts your idea of Jesus and your peculiar Sunni interpretation of the Qur'ân. Adam was the first man to be created, so Jesus can't have been just a man if he was the first creature: it was the angels and the jinns that where created before mankind. In my opinion, the idea that Jesus is an angel is not exactly what is meant in Revelation, but if it were it could match what is written in the Qur'ân about Jesus, where you read rûhun minhu: Isa was first created as rûh, and only at a later moment was he sent to mankind. Moreover, the rûhu 'l qudus (Holy Ghost, Soul of the Holy One) takes on a human shape, giving a faultless child to Mary (Qr 19:17), and similarly this child is another rûh who becomes apparently human: this could explain why Jesus is faultless and cannot be crucified. According to the Qur'ân, 'Isa is a rûh, probably of a special type because he emanates from Allah like or through one of his spirits/souls. When it comes to Jesus, the Qur'ân combines Elchasaism (the identification of the Holy Ghost with Gabriel and Christ, though not always), Arianism (Jesus is the incarnation of an angel) and Docetism (Jesus is only apparently human). As you see, the Qur'ân is not God's Word: it's a theological compilation reworked at different times by people who had different views and probably hardly understood what they were messing with. It is so most probably because the book was originally made for the Arabs by deriving core material from non-Arabic sources at a time when the Arabic language lacked all basic theological concepts. This is why qur'ân (invocation), furqan (redemption) and dîn (vision, community, good actions, good religion, the religion of Ahura Mazda) are not Arabic words and later Islamic theologians distorted their meanings into "recitation", "criterion" (another "interpreted" name of your holy book!) and "institutionalized Islamic religion "(!).

The Greek word αρχη also means "power" or "principality" and may be a rendition of a word from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean root m.l.k from which both the word "ruler, king, messenger, ambassador, minister" and "angel" stem. In case of the Amen being the "ruler" of the Creation it would refer to Jesus as the king of the new world that is coming in opposition to the "prince of this world" that is going to be cast out (ο αρχων του κοσμου τουτου, Satan; Joh 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). This variant interpretation again nullifies yours. As you can see, you cannot use this verse to support your views, whatever the meaning you give to the word αρχη.

Your other quotation is from Paul's letter to the community in Corinthus:

1Co 8:6  But to us (there is but) one God, the Father, of whom (are) all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom (are) all things, and we by him.

1Co 8:6  αλλ ημιν εις θεος ο πατηρ εξ ου τα παντα και ημεις εις αυτον και εις κυριος ιησους χριστος δι ου τα παντα και ημεις δι αυτου

"εις θεος" means "one god"; "ο πατηρ εξ ου τα παντα και ημεις εις αυτον" means "the Father from/out of whom everything (derives) and we (are, exist, live) in him". "εις κυριος" means "one Lord"; "ιησους χριστος δι ου τα παντα και ημεις δι αυτου" means "Jesus Christ by means of/through everything (was made, exists) and we (are, exist, live) by means of/through him". The meaning is very clear: there is one god who is the source of our and the world's existence and one lord Jesus, by whose agency we and the world are brought into existence. This means Jesus precedes the Creation and you are wrong again.

The other verse you quoted is from the letter to the Colossians. I will return the verse to its original context so that you may see how wrong you have gone:

Col 1:12  Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

The verse in  Greek is:

Col 1:15  ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως

"πρωτοτοκος" is the word that is translated as "firstborn", but overtly contradicts the idea of the creation of Jesus which is exclusively an Islamic dogma: nowhere in the Bible is Jesus spoken of as "created", let alone created by a verbal command. In any case, "πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως" means "firstborn of the whole creation" which would be understood as "born before all things were made" (confirmed by verse Col 1:17): it cannot refer to the historical birth of Jesus because it happened long after the world had been made. Verse Col 1:16 explicitly reads that the angelic hierarchies were created by him, Jesus. Another possible interpretation I can give is that Jesus is the Lord of the creation just as the firstborn of a household inherits his rights of preeminence from his father. In the original Greek text the vowels were unaccented (accents were added later), so that "πρωτοτοκος" could be read "πρωτοτόκος" instead of the usual "πρωτότοκος", in which case it would mean "the first genitor". Again, you have misquoted from the New Testament, probably without reading the whole passage in the letter: you would have also noticed that Paul calls Jesus the Son of God in Col 1:13, that redemption is gained through his sacrificial death (Col 1:14), that Jesus is the visible image (εικων) of the invisible God (Col 1:15). The whole passage disconfirms the dogmas of Islam about Jesus and the Qur'ân cannot rely on the New Testament for support in what is written in it.

Now let's move on to the topic of sonship, which is the fundamental rift between Islam and Christianity. The Moslems are the ones who think that Jesus' sonship is biological, while it is only intended metaphorically, in the sense that the word "son" does not perfectly render the concept behind it. Nowhere in the Gospels is there any mention of God inseminating Mary: no-one ever impregnates her. The Catholic dogma, for example, plainly and limpidly claims that she was a virgin before she bore Jesus, all through the throes of childbirth and after Jesus' birth throughout all her life. So it is evident that Jesus' sonship must mean something different than the blood relationship that Islam falsely attributes to Christians as their belief. Moreover, different Christian persuasions have different interpretations of this "sonship", so the Qur'ân is doubly wrong: first in misrepresenting facts and then in generalizing them. The unworldly nature of Jesus' special sonship is so patent in the Gospels that it's obvious that whoever wrote the Qur'ân was either hardly aware of the topic he was dealing with or fabricating accusations in order to justify the violent doctrine he was spreading at the expense of non-Moslems. Islam thrives on misrepresenting all other religions, but especially Judaism and Christianity. There are several of these misrepresentations in the Qur'ân, which makes it clear that either this book is not divine or Allah was not well informed about the beliefs of the Christians and the Jews: the Trinity is fouled up at verse 5:116; the outrageous and false accusation of worship of monks and rabbis as if they were gods is at verse 9:31; the Jewish rabbis (rabbaniyîna) are reported to worship angels and prophets at verses 3:79-80; the Jews are made to claim that Uzayr/Ezra is the son of God at verse 9:30. These verses are enough evidence that the Qur'ân is a fraud.

As for Paul's second letter to Timothy I can't see where the contradiction lies. You think your god Allah "speaks" in a book and to prove that your Qur'ân is God's Word is your own business. The fact is that you will never be able to prove that: you simply believe it is so, because you were trained to think in that way. What I am stunned to see is that you still think the Qur'ân is divine in origin despite the mistakes and contradictions in it. However, this is what Paul wrote about the Scripture in the verse you quoted (King James Bible has the best rendition here perhaps except for "righteousness" in 3:16 where I understand "justness" and "perfect" in 3:17 where I understand "virtuous").

2Ti 3:16  All scripture (is) given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This is the Greek original:

2Ti 3:16  πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγμον ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
2Ti 3:17  ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος

"πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος" means word by word "all scripture (is) divinely inspired", not that it comes from the breath or voice of God. Paul had been a Pharisee and perfectly knew what the ruach ha qodesh (Holy Ghost, αγιον πνευμα) was and how it worked on men also as a source of prophetic inspiration. He was referring to the Holy Ghost as God's manifestation and a type of grace bestowed on the believers. See this supplication:

Psa 51:9  Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Psa 51:10  Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Psa 51:11  Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Psa 51:12  Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
Psa 51:13  Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
Psa 51:14  Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

You say that Allah speaks in the Qur'ân, so please consider Qr 19:16, where someone wrote "And make mention of Mary in the Scripture": who is talking to whom? Who is reminding who in the Scripture that ought to be eternal and preserved in heaven? You think the Qur'ân is divine even if the text of that book has a very mundane history. I'm sure you will reject this point, because you consider your sacred book as whole and immutable, but this is an Islamic mass delusion. This preposterous belief is blindly dogmatical, since it is known that there are different readings of the Qur'ân and that it was NEVER put together while Muhammad was alive. Even Islamic historiography is clear about this point: Muhammad's wife Hafsa had a Qur'ân written on palm-leaves, Aysha had her own and taught the proper order of suras from it (the order was later changed by 'Uthman), Ali had his own copy, Abu Bakr his own and they were all destroyed on caliph 'Uthman's order when he decided to issue a standard Qur'ân. 'Uthman appointed Zayd ibn Thabit as the compiler of the official redaction and what you can say you have today is HIS Qur'ân and no-one else's: certainly NOT Allah's Qur'ân. This is a fact: it is your own historians that say that you had no book before 'Uthman decided you should have one. As far as I'm concerned your religion could be named "Uthmanism". There's more to that: this could all be fine if the Moslems had 'Uthman's original recension, but you do not have that either: you only have later manuscripts and they all show variations in the text. The four major redactions of the Qur'ân are those of imams Warsh, Qalun, Duri and Hafs. These are not the ones: the ancient Gold Koran in the Nuruosmaniye Library in Istanbul, Turkey, does not follow any of the above redactions. Besides containing different words here and there, they do not even have the same number of verses. Allah must have failed to preserve your book and he failed even according to the people who were closest to Muhammad.

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).

This is just one testimony of the corruption of the Qur'ân, but there are many more and you can find them in the ahâdith, where abridged suras and different readings are overtly mentioned.

Malik's Muwatta Book 15, Number 15.4.5: Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari said that he had heard Umar ibn al-Khattab say, "I heard Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam reciting Surat al-Furqan (Sura 25) differently from me, and it was the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who had recited it to me. I was about to rush up to him but I granted him a respite until he had finished his prayer. Then I grabbed him by his cloak and took him to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surat al-Furqan differently from the way you recited it to me.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Let him go.' Then he said, 'Recite, Hisham,' and Hisham recited as I had heard him recite. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'It was sent down like that.' Then he said to me, 'Recite' and I recited the sura, and he said, 'It was sent down like that. This Qur'an was sent down in seven (different) ways, so recite from it whatever is easy for you.' "

So there are seven readings: if you consider today's Qur'ân unaltered where are the other six versions?

Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 507: Narrated Anas bin Malik: (The Caliph 'Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Quran in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them. "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Quran was revealed in this dialect." So they did it.

Apparently the compilers of the Qur'ân even disagreed on the language that had to be used for the Qur'ân. The plain truth is that the Qur'ân was not written in the Arabic dialect of Mecca and that the Meccan pronunciation is not even advised for recitation. The Qur'ân is full of borrowings from Aramaic, a language which was nowhere spoken in Arabia. The Qur'ân isn't written in a specific dialect and contains lots of words of unknown meaning (See Luxenberg's "Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran"). You may be happy with one of those approved translations funded and circulated for free by the wahhabi Saudis, but try to get Rudi Paret's translation with commentary in German and see for yourself how clear and contemporary the language of the Qur'ân is. All this has nothing to do with the internal dynamics of any language or evolution or change. If one single dot of the Qur'ân is changed then the whole of it falls apart. If one word is meaningless, the meaning of the message is lost.

I'm sure that if you are religious enough you are familiar with the ahâdith dealing with the corruption of the Qur'ân. There are a few more things that perhaps you can explain to me: why are adulterers stoned when this punishment is not mentioned in the Qur'ân? Where is the verse about stoning in the Qur'ân? Why are apostates from Islam killed when this punishment is not in the Qur'ân? Why do you pray the way you pray when it is not what is taught in the Qur'ân? Where is the salat described? Why must you pray only in Arabic when you perform it, otherwise it is null? Why are you circumcized if that type of ritual mutilation is not even hinted to in the Qur'ân? What does your religion stand upon? Allah's Word? I very much doubt that.

As for the verse about the preservation of the Qur'ân, this is again a great delusion: anybody could write a similar sentence in a text. I could do it too right here and state that what I'm writing to you was revealed to me by God in person and that he will preserve it from corruption. The verse you quoted has nothing to do with the preservation of the Qur'ân from corruption, simply because the words "preservation from corruption" are not in the Arabic text at all. The verse Qr 15:9 only reads that Allah sends a "warning" a "reminder", which is the meaning of the word "dhikr", besides others. The "warning" is about the Final Judgment and in fact in verse 15:8 you can read that if Allah openly sent angels to mankind there'd be no respite, because the Last Day would have come. The same concept is repeated in Qr 6:8, where you can read that if Allah should send angels it would be the end of the world. The verse you quoted only says Allah gives a warning, or reminds through the prophets, that he will judge mankind and that Allah is the one who judges and who knows when that day will be (Qr 16:77).

Among scholars opinions have varied about the structure of the Qur'ân. Ubayy ibn Ka’b stated the number of the verses in the Qur’an was 6210. ‘Ata ibn Yasar said the suras were 114, the verses were 6170, the words 77439, and the letters 323015. Asim al-Jahdari, said there were 113 suras in the Qur'ân. Yahya ibn al-Harith al-Dhamarisa counted 6226 verses, while the letters were 321,530. Today the Qur’an has approximately 78090 words. "Approximately", because it depends on which redaction is being used.

And as for Arabic being still alive and unchanged today I think you should read some scientific text about linguistics and realize what Arabic is. "Linguistic areals" used to be my favourite subject at university and "Arabic" is just a generic label that is applied to a vast dialectal continuum which ranges from Morocco to some regions of Iran (Shatt el Arab) and from Malta to Socotra. The differences of pronounciation and vocabulary are impressive already when moving from Algeria through Libya to Egypt. It is true you can study Classical Arabic, but that language is artificial, it exists only in grammars and even the Qur'ân itself is not written in Classical Arabic. If anybody wants to learn "real" spoken Arabic they have to choose a "prestigious" dialectal variant (of Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad) and dialectal variants deviate considerably from Classical Arabic in pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology and syntax. But there are other factors: for example, in the case of Maghreb, the local population is Berber (Tuareg), so that the linguistic underlayer in that region is non-Arabic and Arabic is imposed for political and religious reasons on native non-Arabs. Since Berber dialects are still spoken by the local population, there's also a non-Arabic adstrate (a language used side by side with another) still extant and vital today, which causes the Arabic language used there to be very fluid and "unstable", that depending on how well the local speakers can master it. The more one is schooled the better he can use the official language: anybody may speak Classical Arabic if they are taught that language, just as they could be taught Latin, Sanskrit or Classical Greek. Yet take into account the degree of illiteracy, which in some Arabic countries is appalling (in Yemen, for instance, roughly 80% of the population is illiterate). Where illiteracy is high that means that Classical Arabic is neither written nor spoken by the majority of the local population. I also must correct you on the diffusion of Arabic: it isn't spoken all over the world, it has changed over the centuries and today's Arabic is not the same as that spoken 1400 years ago.

You said the Bible changes always. It is your duty now to prove it philologically. I also expect you to tell me who is changing the Bible and why these changes are made. In this reply to you I have quoted from various translated texts: if the Bible is an ever-changing book my quotations must needs be wrong and I require you to prove this, too, point by point. You, too, quoted from the Bible to support your own ideas: if the Bible is an unreliable source then your quotations are of no use and your arguments are practically invalid. But because you did quote from the Bible, I also expect you to tell me why you quoted from it and why you chose that specific translation into English instead of another. Do you have a superior degree of knowledge which enables you to choose the right translation? As for myself, I must be very ignorant, even if I quoted from Greek and translated it for you word by word... It may be worse: not only am I ignorant, but I must also be stupid not to realize the changes when I move through a considerable number of translations of the Bible into several different modern languages, besides Latin and Greek. Please, enlighten me, because it seems to me I always read the same book.

I have given enough evidence that the Qur'ân is written in some obscure mixed language that is basically Arabic, but cannot be identified as a particular Arabic dialect spoken in a specific place: the ahâdith report that it is written partly in the dialect of the Qurashi (quraysh) tribe, but no-one can say how much of it is in that language and in any case it was 'Uthman who ordered that particular standardization because no official integral text had existed before. Some words in the Qur'ân have no meaning at all. Lots of words and expressions are borrowed from Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew. The famous formula b' ismi 'llah is a hebraism modelled on the Hebrew be shem YHWH: this formula, however, only has a meaning in Hebrew, because it refers to the power of YHWH's shem as a manifestation of the Godhead (the other manifestations are debar [word], kabod [glory], paniyim [countenance] and ruach [spirit]). The words qur'ân and furqan are aramaisms; dîn is a Persian word. There is an enormous amount of translations of the Qur'ân and no two translators interpret it in the same way so that translations are at variance. Scroll back to where I dealt with the substitution theory and compare with your own translations. Isn't it miraculous that even I can offer an interpretation that you cannot refute because it makes sense? Above I have told you of the differences between the Hafs, Qalun, Duri, Warsh redactions and between them and older manuscripts that do not follow any official redaction and are not complete. I'm telling you again that you do not have Muhammad's Qur'ân: you have a late redaction of 'Uthman's standardized text, with all the suras mixed up in a weird order so that no-one knows what is the exact order of their revelation. Some Meccan and Medinese revelations are combined: Qr 2:281 is said to have been revealed on the day of Muhammad's last pilgrimage, but the rest of sura 2 is entirely Medinese; Qr 6:20, 23, 91, 93, 114, 141, 151, 152, 153 are Medinese verses in a Meccan sura. Verses 163 to 170 in Meccan sura 7 are Medinese. Many suras have mixed verses: who messed things up? Considering the confusion, can you decide how many verses were abrogated? I hope we can deal with nasikh and mansukh on some other occasion, but it is exactly because the Qur'ân is a jumbled text that there is no consensus on this topic. Moreover, think of how absurd it is to claim the eternal and uncreated Word of Allah can somehow be abrogated or "reshuffled".

And now a last word on the light of Islam that was brought to the pagans of Arabia. I'd wish to know what you exactly mean by "light". The pagans of the Arabic peninsula are described as a peaceful people which was wiped off the face of the planet by means of the sword. Islam was imposed upon the pagans, while the Arabic Jewish tribes were either massacred or expelled from their homeland: there are no Christians and no Jews either in Medina or Mecca: why? There are no longer any pagan Arabs: why? Because Islam destroyed entire civilizations and caused the extinction of more respectable and peaceful religions. And it all happened through war, murder, pillage and terror.

You quoted from the Qur'ân as a conclusion to your letter. I shall quote from the Gospel:

Mat 22:37  [...] "'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38  This is the greatest and most important commandment.
Mat 22:39  The second is like it: 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.'
Mat 22:40  All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."

I know this is a very long reply to your letter, but it was necessary for me to go back to the sources both for your and my quotations for the love of clarity. Originally my reply was even longer, but I felt obliged to omit seven paragraphs in order not to burden you too much. Some points I have not dealt with in as detailed a way as I'd have wished, especially when discussing the problem with the Arabic language, but I'm willing to touch that topic again if necessary.

The Qur'âns I used are those available from various sites especially in the English translations made by Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Sher Ali, Palmer and Rodwell. I also used Rudi Paret's translation into German with its commentary and Alessandro Bausani's translation into Italian (these two are not available for free). Arabic Qur'âns are available from both Sunni, Shi'a and non-Islamic sites.

Take care and take all the time you need to elaborate your reply.

Sincerely,

Ennius/Agostino.