Returning to God and His Messages… From the Torah and the Gospel to the Qur’an

For centuries, people have disagreed: Which path leads closest to God? Which book has remained closest to the original message? And do we follow God, or what human beings have added over time?

This essay is not a call to hate anyone or to disparage the followers of a religion. Rather, it is a call to return to the books themselves—the Torah, the four Gospels, and the Qur’an—and then ask sincerely:

Where does inquiry lead us if we place the text before inherited tradition?

First: Who Speaks in Scripture?

When reading the Torah, we find a mixture of narrative, legislation, stories, and dialogues, alongside the words of God, the words of prophets, and the words of human beings. The text thus moves between history, covenant, and legal prescriptions.

In the Gospels, we find accounts of the life of Jesus, his sayings, his parables, and his conversations with people. The style is closer to biography, teaching, and exhortation.

The Qur’an, however, presents itself in an entirely different way: as a sending down, a revelation, and a direct address. It does not begin by saying “I saw” or “he told us about his life”; rather, formulas such as “Say,” “We revealed,” and “God said” recur throughout it.

From this arises the question: If I am seeking a discourse that presents itself directly as the word of God, which text declares this most clearly?

Second: Who Is God?

In the Torah, God appears as the Creator, the legislator of the covenant, the God who intervenes in the history of the Children of Israel, and the giver of the commandments. The emphasis is clearly on the relationship between God and the covenant.

In the Gospel, the emphasis falls more on mercy, love, forgiveness, and spiritual closeness.

The Qur’an, however, offers a direct and concentrated definition: God is one, has no partner, has no child, and is the Lord of all worlds.

﴿لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ﴾ (He neither begets nor was begotten, and no one is equal to Him.) [الإخلاص: ٣-٤]

From this, the believer in Islam sees divine unity as having returned to its pure form: no lineage, no nationalism, and no partner in divinity.

Third: Is There an Indication of a Later Message?

In the Torah, we find mention of “a prophet like Moses,” as well as mention of Paran and its connection to Ishmael. This opens up a question: Was the message to remain solely within Israel, or was it to extend beyond it?

In the Gospel, particularly the Gospel of John, a description appears of the one coming after Jesus: he comes after him, is associated with truth, does not speak on his own, conveys what he hears, tells of things to come, and glorifies Jesus.

﴿وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ﴾ (And bringing good tidings of a messenger who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad.) [الصف: ٦]

From this, the Islamic perspective holds that the line of the message was not broken: Abraham, then Moses, then Jesus, then Muhammad; and that Islam presents itself not as a separate beginning but as a continuation of the Abrahamic message.

Fourth: God or Human Beings?

The problem does not always lie in the books. Sometimes it begins when inherited tradition is placed above the text, opinion above the message, and human words above revelation.

The call here is not to reject scholarship, but to order priorities: God first, the message second, and human understanding thereafter.

Scholarship serves the text; it does not replace it.

Fifth: Why Does a Muslim Regard Islam as the Final Continuation?

Because the Qur’an—from the perspective of Islamic faith—brings together divine unity, prophethood, ethics, legislation, the Last Day, and the universality of the message.

﴿إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ﴾ (Indeed, the religion in the sight of God is Islam.) [آل عمران: ١٩]

That is, submission to God alone. Not to the tribe, race, school of thought, or human authority when it contradicts revelation.

Sixth: Who Is Satan in the Three Books?

Clear differences emerge when comparing portrayals of Satan. In the Torah, his presence is relatively limited: we do not find a detailed account of his origin, his fall, his refusal to prostrate, or his designs concerning human beings. The greater emphasis remains on obedience, covenant, sin, and the consequences of disobedience. Human beings themselves thus remain the locus of responsibility.

In the Gospels, the portrayal of Satan becomes clearer: he appears as the tempter, the deceiver, the enemy, and the instigator of temptation. His confrontation with Jesus stands out: turning stone into bread, testing God, and offering dominion over the world. Even so, we do not find a complete description of his origin or the course of his rebellion.

The Qur’an, however, offers a more detailed portrayal: Satan is Iblis, one of the jinn; he refused to prostrate before Adam, grew arrogant, asked for a reprieve, and swore to lead people astray. His means are whispering, making things seem alluring, instilling fear, false promises, stirring up enmity, and diverting people from remembrance. It also mentions devils among the jinn and devils among human beings.

The Qur’an makes his authority limited: he does not create, compel, or possess absolute control; rather, he calls and makes things seem alluring.

Seventh: Who Knows Their Enemy Better?

If we look from a purely epistemic standpoint, the Torah offers less detailed knowledge of Satan’s nature. What was said above about the Torah concerns the text itself; the portrayal of Satan as a tester or the holder of a function belongs to developments in later Jewish thought.

In later Jewish thought, the portrayal of Satan expands compared with what appears in the Torah. He is not always regarded as an independent enemy of God; rather, he may appear as an adversary or a tester operating within the divine order, not outside it.

In some conceptions, Satan is understood as an angel performing a function connected with testing, revealing the truth of the human being, and distinguishing the truthful from others. His role thus becomes closer to divine testing than to absolute rebellion.

The idea of the fallen angel emerged more clearly in later developments, in some religious literature, and in Christian thought, but it is not an explicit description within the text of the Torah itself. This is why the portrayal of Satan in Jewish thought differs from the Qur’anic portrayal, which presents him as Iblis, one of the jinn, pursuing a project of temptation and open enmity toward human beings.

In the Gospel, the portrayal expands a little. The Qur’an, however, provides the name, the origin, the reason for the fall, the goal, the means, the limits of authority, and the means of deliverance.

“The most difficult person for me is not someone who bears a particular religious label, but someone who knows me well, understands how I work, and knows where I enter.”

From this, one may say that the Qur’an offers a broader awareness of the nature of the conflict: a more detailed description of Satan and the methods of temptation. From the Islamic perspective, this may be regarded as an expansion of awareness and a strengthening of epistemic safeguards.

A Final Appeal

You who seek God… read. Read the Torah, read the Gospel, and read the Qur’an. But do not read solely through the eyes of inherited tradition; read through the eyes of an inquirer.

And ask: Who is God? Who is speaking? What is the nature of the message? And am I following revelation itself, or what has been said about revelation?

If you find that pure divine unity, direct revelation, the universality of the message, and the continuity of the line of prophets from Adam to Jesus and then Muhammad have come together in Islam, then draw closer to the Qur’an and draw closer to God. Not because people said so, but because you investigated, read, and arrived for yourself.

Conclusion: The Message or the Institution?

Messages usually begin with a revelation calling people directly to God, but over time institutions, traditions, schools, and interpretations arise. The problem does not begin with the existence of human understanding, but when inherited tradition becomes higher than the text and interpretation is treated as though it were the message itself. The path to God then shifts from revelation to the intermediary.

The shift occurs when authority moves from the question “What did God say?” to the question “What did people say about God’s words?” Opinions, customs, and traditions may then become a reference point that takes precedence over the text, and defending an understanding becomes more important than searching for truth.

For this reason, the distinction between God’s words and human understanding of God’s words remains essential. Revelation is the foundation, while interpretation is a human attempt at understanding: it may be right or wrong. Returning to the message does not mean dismantling scholarship, but reordering the hierarchy: God first, then revelation, then human interpretive endeavor.