Doubts about what the Qur’aan says about ‘Eesa (peace be upon him)
Question

                How can you expect non-Muslims to believe what your Book says about ‘Eesa, and to reject the story of his crucifixion and deny that he is the son of God, when the Bible affirms these things?.
Praise be to Allah.
      We may be repeating ourselves here if we point out that the 
      Gospels, or the Bible, of which we are speaking, that is extant among the 
      people nowadays, is something other than that which was revealed from 
      Allaah to His slave and Messenger ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary – 
      peace be upon him). With regard to what was revealed from Allaah, no one's 
      faith is valid if he disbelieves in it or in any part of it. We have 
      warned against that in question no.
      47516. 

    But for reasons of divine wisdom, that book continued to be 
    distorted and misinterpreted from ancient times until its divine origin was 
    lost and disappeared. All that the people have in their hands now is no more 
    than a mixture of the darkness of shirk and trinity with the glimmer of the 
    light of Tawheed, an accumulation of lies and distortions mixed with the 
    remnants of the truth and knowledge of the Prophets. 

    Now, after so many centuries of tampering, it is impossible 
    for anyone to be certain whether any part of the Bible is true or false, 
    unless it is checked in the light of the truth that confirms that which went 
    before, the divine light of which has not been extinguished by the darkness 
    of ignorance and whims and desires, and whose pure truthfulness has not been 
    contaminated with even a single lie or mistake. That can be nothing other 
    than the Holy Qur’aan which Allaah has guaranteed to preserve, as He says 
    (interpretation of the meaning): 
“Verily, We, it is We Who 
    have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it 
    (from corruption)”

    [al-Hijr 15:9]

    Even though one of the greatest Christian scholars and 
    defenders of the Bible, namely Norton, tried to defend the Bible against the 
    criticism of Ackharn the German, he was forced to admit that distinguishing 
    truth from lies nowadays is very difficult. 

    From this we reach the matter asked about in the question. We 
    say that whoever does not believe in the Qur’aan will never have any valid 
    book in which to believe, and whoever casts aspersions upon the truthfulness 
    of the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the 
    validity of the Islamic religion, will not be able to offer any proof that 
    the religion which he follows is valid. 

    The point is that whoever casts aspersions upon the Prophet 
     (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the things that he said 
    about his Prophethood and the Revelation that he received from heaven, even 
    though miracles happened at his hands that confirmed the veracity of what he 
    said, and all his life he continued to challenge his enemies to produce the 
    like of the Book which he attributed to the revelation of his Lord, and even 
    challenged mankind and the jinn together to cooperate and produce something 
    like this Qur’aan, as Allaah said: 

    “Say: “If the mankind and the jinn were together to 
    produce the like of this Qur’aan, they could not produce the like thereof, 
    even if they helped one another”

    [al-Isra’ 17:88]
But they were not able 
    to do that and produce anything like it, throughout history and until now, 
    in spite of the numerous enemies who opposed him and wished that they could 
    prove that he was lying. But there is no way they can do that! 

    Moreover, the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be 
    upon him) continued to prevail over his enemies and they were unable to 
    prove him wrong. They were never able to prove that he was lying in anything 
    he said, even in the regular kind of talk that people engage in amongst 
    themselves, let alone telling lies about his Lord Who had sent him.  

    I wonder, if they reject all that evidence, how they could 
    have any evidence of the soundness of the idea of “divine inspiration” which 
    forms the foundation of their belief in their books, in spite of the fact 
    that they do not claim that the Gospel was revealed to Jesus, or that he 
    wrote it or dictated it, or even that the Gospels were written during his 
    lifetime! 

    Moreover, there is no sound evidence concerning the 
    personalities of the four men who wrote the Gospels: who they were, how they 
    lived their lives, and whether what they wrote came from divine revelation 
    or divine inspiration, as they claim, or it was only their own ideas or what 
    was inspired to them by their devils. Horn, one of the greatest exegetes of 
    the Bible, says: “If it is said that the Bible was revealed from God, that 
    does not mean that every single word or phrase of it is inspired by God. 
    Rather we know from the statements of those who wrote the Bible, from the 
    differences in their styles, that they were permitted to write according to 
    their own natures, customs and understanding. It is unimaginable that they 
    could have been inspired in everything they described or in every ruling 
    they stated.” 

    The Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to the different 
    opinions among Christian scholars and researchers concerning the matter of 
    divine inspiration and whether every phrase of the Bible is divinely 
    inspired or not. Then it comments on that in one article (19/20) where it 
    says: “Those who say that every phrase is divinely inspired cannot prove 
    their claims with any ease.” 

    We say: and they cannot do so even with difficulty! 

    There are dozens of places where the Gospels contradict one 
    another, and dozens of historical errors and false prophecies that never 
    materialized. Frederick Grant stated that “The New Testament is not 
    homogeneous because it is a compilation of scattered elements. It does not 
    represent a single point of view or style from beginning to end, rather it 
    represents different points of view. 

    The American Encyclopaedia states that there is a 
    serious problem that results from the contradictions that appear in 
    different places throughout the fourth Gospel and the three synoptic 
    Gospels. The differences between them are so great that if you accept the 
    synoptic Gospels as sound and correct, this will lead to the conclusion that 
    the Gospel of John is not sound. 

    It is worth noting that the Gospel of John is the one which 
    focuses the most on their doctrine of trinity; indeed they admit that it was 
    written to establish this doctrine, which the other three Gospels failed to 
    do, and to put an end to the dispute concerning this matter. 

    The Catholic Church, which strongly adheres to the idea of 
    divine inspiration as the origin of the Bible, confirmed that in a meeting 
    of the Vatican in 1869-1870. But a century later it revised its opinion and 
    admitted, in Vatican II (1962-1965) that these books contain a great deal of 
    defects and some falsehoods, according to what was reported by the French 
    Catholic researcher Dr Maurice Bucaille, who later became a Muslim. 

    Moreover, if a person disbelieves in any of the miracles of 
    the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or any aspects 
    of his life story that point to his truthfulness, how can he prove the 
    miracles of these so-called apostles who wrote the Gospels, or prove that 
    their claim to divine inspiration is correct? 

    For them, the idea of divine inspiration is correct on the 
    basis of what is written in the Bible, and the miracles mentioned therein, 
    and the Bible is sound and correct because it is divinely inspired! 

    Thus their evidence ends in a vicious circle, as was 
    mentioned in the Encyclopaedia by some researchers: “So the Bible is 
    sound because it is divinely inspired and their inspiration is proven 
    because the Bible testifies to that!” 

    If a person disbelieves in the Qur’aan, which was transmitted 
    by means of tawaatur (a process in which something is narrated from so many 
    by so many that it is inconceivable that they could all agree upon a lie), 
    throughout the Muslim world, east and west, generation after generation, by 
    memory and in writing, with no variant copies and no contradictions, how can 
    he prove the Gospels to be sound or rely on them, when there is no shred of 
    evidence, not even a hint, that they existed any earlier than two hundred 
    years after the death of Christ, according to what Norton quoted from 
    Ackharn the German? Then there were the calamities that befell the 
    Christians in the fourth century CE, when their churches were destroyed and 
    their books were burned, which makes one lose confidence in any of their 
    books that appeared after that. When did they appear and in whose possession 
    were they during that period of persecution and hiding? How did they reach 
    us?… There are many questions about this problem as was expressed in the 
    Encyclopaedia Britannica where it says: 

    “We have no certain knowledge of the way in which the 
    canonical soundness of these four Gospels was established, nor where or when 
    this decision was made.” 

    With regard to not knowing who translated it from the 
    language in which it was originally written, how reliable his knowledge was 
    and how qualified he was for this task, and how we can be certain that he 
    translated it in the proper manner, that is a whole other issue! 

    For more details on what we have mentioned in summary in this 
    answer, please see: Izhaar al-Haq by Shaykh Rahmat-Allaah al-Hindi. 
    And Munaazarah bayna al-Islam wa’l-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad 
    Jameel Ghaazi et al. 

    May Allaah guide us and you to the Straight Path.