View Full Version : Forum Confusion
Students of Islam,
I recently posted an article focusing on what the Qur'an says about the Books before the Qur'an. The posting was removed after a couple days but no explanation was given. I double checked to make sure the article was in line with the guidelines of the forum and as best I can tell, it was. I emailed Tayeb the administrator for an explanation but had no reply.
I posted the same article again last night and tripled checked for anything even slightly offensive. The article was removed again either that night or the next day, again with no information either posted or emailed to me.
I don't want to think that the administration is trying to hide anything, I'm sure it isn't, but the silent activity makes the forum look suspicious. I'm merely asking for the administration to clear up the confusion around the issue.
I haven't been here long, so perhaps I'm mistaken on something that's perfectly obvious to everyone else. If that's my problem, I'd ask someone to let me know. Responses can also be sent to Hamasheachyeshua@hotmail.com Thank you all for listening.
JBJ
I recieved this from the admin today, but I'm still confused.
Dear JBJ,
How are you?
We removed your messages and informed you why. We
don't allow IWC to be a vehicle of propagation of
other beliefs. You have used the Qur'an out of context
to prove what you want.
Regards,
Tayeb
Admin
I can't understand how my post was out of context, especially compared to other posts. It also seems that my post was related to the Qur'an's beliefs. Would someone please help me?
LAST EDITED ON 11-12-01 AT 06:33 AM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 04-12-01 AT 07:30*PM (GMT)
Here's the article previously posted so that readers can better understand what's going on. I took out several ayat (4.171 5.77), partly thanks to Dr Quasair's comments. I hadn't thought before that "religion" could have more than one meaning. Please excuse my error. 29.46 has also been taken out. In the same way, I'm open to the explanations of other people responding.
JBJ
Jcecil has mentioned several times different ayat that seem to say the Torah and Gospel were true at Muhammad's time. To my knowledge no one has answered them, or not fully. Just about every objection that gets put up in this forum gets answered except this one, so I'm putting them up again in hopes that someone will.
The following is an incomplete listing of such quotes, but they're enough to start out with:
10.94 But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you.
believe in, and do ye reject the rest?
2.120 Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.
3.93 Say: (to the Jews) "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
10.94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
In other words, people should ask the Jews because they've been reading the truth sent by God.
So why do no Muslims say this? I work with a lot of Biblical apparent contradictions and other issues to understand what I believe is God's revelation. I hope Muslims reading this will work through what they believe is God's revelation.
JBJ
Dr Qaisar
30-11-2001, 13:23
Greetings JBJ,
I had read your post in the "Who invented Trinity" thread and I believe I had answered your querry to the best of my ability. But as far as I know, your post is still there and has not been removed. Personally, I have not found anything objectionable if that is all it contains. Maybe the moderators know better!
Dr.Qaisar
Dear Dr. Quaisar,
Thanks again for reading that post, it did give me some good insight. I also tried to respond to what you wrote, I think you may have missed it. Feel free of course to copy that post to this thread so others can see it.
From the your other postings I've come to respect you and your work, I hope you'll continue to work with me on this thread.
God bless!
JBJ
Greetings Asif,
Thanks for taking interest. I don't have the time to respond to all of what you've written, but God willing, I will in the future. I'll just start by discussing the Torah. You said:
The Jews had received Allah's revelations, yet they refused to follow it. They were told what to do, and what not, yet they refused to follow it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I take from you words is that the Torah is in fact both confirmed and approved. I've I'm mistaken, then just tell me and you can disregard the rest of this response. If not, then let's take a look at something the Torah says.
This is from a section of the Torah called Genesis, which means "beginning." Here Adam and Eve have just disobeyed God by eating from food that was forbidden to them after being tempted by Satan. He says to Satan:
And I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. Genesis 3.15
There's something peticular about this quote, God is prophesying that an offspring of Eve is going to crush the head of Satan. Some Jews and all Christians say that this speaks of the messiah. But who would a Muslim say this speaks of?
First note that to "crush the head" means to kill; no one walks around with a crushed head. But because Satan is a spiritual being, no mortal human could kill Satan. Thus, it says someone will (or already has) been born a human but is much more than powerful than any other human. This person must be both man and angel, or both man and God.
Now you say you believe the Torah (at Muhammad and our time) is God's revelation. So I ask you, who is God speaking about?
There is no evidence (that I've read) Muhammad ever claimed to be this powerful, nor that any other known prophets claimed this. Except one. Perhaps there is an explanation for this I haven't heard or thought of, I'm very interested in hearing it.
I'll finish in time. God be with you in your study!
JBJ
Hi Asif!
Sorry for misunderstanding you on what you said about the Torah. I know the common consensus of Muslims is that the Torah, Zabur, and Gospel all have been changed, but I wasn't sure if perhaps you thought differently. But now I'm confused, because how should 3.93 be understood?
3:93 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth"
You gave the hadith telling how Muhammad told Jews to find their answer in the Torah and then said
They refused to accept what was in their books. That is why Allah keeps telling the Jews to study their book if they are truthful, and see what is really the truth. Because the Jews refused to follow what was in their book, and followed their desires.
It seems we're still back at our old problem, you say that some or all of the Torah has been tampered with, but the Qur'an still tells Jews to study it. And there's second problem. God says to Satan in the Torah:
And I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. Genesis 3.15
I said before that God is prophesying that there will be an angel-man or a God-man who will defeat Satan. Because this doesn't fit with Islam, it would have to have been added in. But why? First it's just a wierd thing to say, second it doesn't really fit with Judaism either. Why would rabbis (or whomever) put in this mystery verse that no one could understand until Jesus died and conflicts with their beliefs?
Let's look at the verses you've shown about changing the Books:
4.46Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: ‘We hear your word (O Muhammad) and disobey,’ and ‘Hear and let you (Muhammad) hear nothing.’ And Raa’ina with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam). And if only they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ and ‘Do make us understand,’ it would have been better for them, and more proper, but Allaah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except for a few.
Notice it says "tongues," not "hands" or "pens" or such. This isn't talking about changing the Torah itself, but changing it [/i]verbally[/i].
5.13So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allaah loves al-Muhsineen (good-doers).
What does "right places" mean? A different translation uses "context" for the Arabic. In other words these Jews are taking scripture out of context making them look different.
2.75Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allaah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?
This one seems like it could mean either verbally or physically. But there are four problems with saying it means changing physically.
First, this idea is out of context. We've already seen from the other verses that there were Jews verbally changing the message of the Torah, and there are more verses saying this. The Qur'an here doesn't say physically, and while it says verbally several times, if this were meaning physically, it would be the only time in the whole Qur'an it says this. And what would be more important? Physically or verbally? People constantly change things verbally, but very rarely do people change a holy book. Of course we'd say physically is more important.
Second, the verse is very brief. Like I said, this is the only time the Qur'an could mean physically, and only in a single sentence. This is an extremely important topic in Islam, as well as the greatest cover-ups in all of history. This is the only verse it's mentioned in, why would God be so brief?
Third, the verse is talking about non-physical issues. First the verse mentions "believing in your religion," which is non-physical. Then it mentions "hear the Word of Allah," which is non-physical, and verbal no less. Third it mentions "change." Yusuf Ali translates "pervert." Last it mentions "understanding" which yet again is non-physical. There's never any mention of the physical texts, only the hearing of the Word. If someone heard this verse, after hearing the others we mentioned, would he think it means physical or verbal?
Let's see. Abdullah Ibn Abbas, one of the Sahaba, wrote in part of his tafseer on Bukhari's hadith 9.942:
"They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning." Yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.
Fourth, the Qur'an says Word of Allah, not Torah. There's no reason to think it doesn't mean the Qur'an, or the Gospel, for both of which the Jews have rejected (in general).
Fifth, it contradicts 3.93 where it tells Jews to study the Torah, and neither of us believe the Qur'an would make such an obvious mistake.
So, what do you think? I'll respond to the rest of your other article very soon.
God bless!
JBJ
Mardhiah
03-12-2001, 06:23
Assalamualaikum Wr Wb,
Greeting JBJ,
-It seems we're still back at our old problem, you say that some or all of the Torah has been tampered with, but the Qur'an still tells Jews to study it.
The Quran tells them to study the REAL torah."All food was lawful to the children of Israel." No food is forbidden including camels (The jews believe camels can't be eaten). "Except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth"
Just like other races, the jews have their own prohibition towards some food.Nothing to do with the Torah because they had lived before it.Somehow after generations, the prohibition of food and Torah seemed to mix.And if they still stubborn with that kind of belief, then study back the real version of the Torah.The birth of Muhammad s.a.w was not to follow them instead to correct mistakes.Even before him, Jesus a.s had corrected the mistakes, allowing them to eat great variety of food.
-And I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. Genesis 3.15
I said before that God is prophesying that there will be an angel-man or a God-man who will defeat Satan. Because this doesn't fit with Islam, it would have to have been added in. But why? First it's just a wierd thing to say, second it doesn't really fit with Judaism either. Why would rabbis (or whomever) put in this mystery verse that no one could understand until Jesus died and conflicts with their beliefs?
You should direct the question to the rabbis.This is all I can say: the Torah can't be accepted anymore though we muslims belive it was once words of Allah.So don't create confusion giving yourself a headache.
-Let's look at the verses you've shown about changing the Books:
4.46Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: ‘We hear your word (O Muhammad) and disobey,’ and ‘Hear and let you (Muhammad) hear nothing.’ And Raa’ina with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam). And if only they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ and ‘Do make us understand,’ it would have been better for them, and more proper, but Allaah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except for a few.
Notice it says "tongues," not "hands" or "pens" or such. This isn't talking about changing the Torah itself, but changing it verbally.
5.13So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allaah loves al-Muhsineen (good-doers).
What does "right places" mean? A different translation uses "context" for the Arabic. In other words these Jews are taking scripture out of context making them look different.
2.75Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allaah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?
This one seems like it could mean either verbally or physically. But there are four problems with saying it means changing physically.
First, this idea is out of context. We've already seen from the other verses that there were Jews verbally changing the message of the Torah, and there are more verses saying this. The Qur'an here doesn't say physically, and while it says verbally several times, if this were meaning physically, it would be the only time in the whole Qur'an it says this. And what would be more important? Physically or verbally? People constantly change things verbally, but very rarely do people change a holy book. Of course we'd say physically is more important.
Second, the verse is very brief. Like I said, this is the only time the Qur'an could mean physically, and only in a single sentence. This is an extremely important topic in Islam, as well as the greatest cover-ups in all of history. This is the only verse it's mentioned in, why would God be so brief?
Third, the verse is talking about non-physical issues. First the verse mentions "believing in your religion," which is non-physical. Then it mentions "hear the Word of Allah," which is non-physical, and verbal no less. Third it mentions "change." Yusuf Ali translates "pervert." Last it mentions "understanding" which yet again is non-physical. There's never any mention of the physical texts, only the hearing of the Word. If someone heard this verse, after hearing the others we mentioned, would he think it means physical or verbal?
Let's see. Abdullah Ibn Abbas, one of the Sahaba, wrote in part of his tafseer on Bukhari's hadith 9.942:
"They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning." Yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.
You are finding ways to show contradictions in the Quran.Whether it is verbally or pysically, that is not important.The main point is they change the words of Allah.Anyway, to me changing something verbally can give a long-term effect and be the source of physical changes.It can remain for generations; parents pass it to their children, teachers teach their students and friends communicate with each other.Finally one decides to write about it.There, from verbal to pysical.So verbally is more important.
Verse 2:75 was telling Muhammad s.a.w and the Muslims not to put so much hope for the Jews to convert to Muslims.They would do the same thing as they did to the Torah.Changing Allah's words is like a regular activity to them and no doubt they can the same towards Islam.Interpreting the Quran differently and then spread it out.In fact there are hadiths created by the Jews.Nauzubillah!
- Fourth, the Qur'an says Word of Allah, not Torah. There's no reason to think it doesn't mean the Qur'an, or the Gospel, for both of which the Jews have rejected (in general).
Torah was the words of Allah.They changed the contents, definately they can change the Quran or the Gospel.They may be rejecting both but ask yourself, why are they creating fake hadiths???????
Mardhiah Mansor
Ruqayyah
03-12-2001, 12:37
Bismillahirrahinirrahim:
I have a question about the Bible.I understand like the Quran,the Bible has undergone alot of translation processes.But somehow,the translations can sometimes be different.
I found this, for example.
One says:
"And the word was God".
And the other says:
"And the word was God's".
This is really a big difference.So I was just wondering...how could the Christians still say that the Bible isn't corrupted when the evidence is really quite clear?
Hi Mardiah!
Thanks for joining our discussion. I hope we can find an answer to satsify each of us. You said:
The Quran tells them to study the REAL torah.
Can you find the number for that aya, I'm not sure what place in the Qur'an you're refering to. The aya we're looking at is 3.93:
All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth"
What exactly is the real Torah? If it's the one that was changed long ago, how can the Qur'an tell Jews to bring it? Where would they get it from? The real Torah must have been around at Muhammad's time, or else the Qur'an would not ask the Jews to bring and study it.
Now if the real version of the Torah was around the Jews during Muhammad's life, then there would still be very old copies of the real Torah. In the 1940's a Muslim boy found these copies in Palestine. The condition of them showed they came from around 100 BC to 100 AD. They're available to read in any library, synagogue, book store, and a lot of web sites. The verse from the Torah I typed is in these same copies. You also said:
Whether it is verbally or pysically, that is not important.The main point is they change the words of Allah.Anyway, to me changing something verbally can give a long-term effect and be the source of physical changes.It can remain for generations; parents pass it to their children, teachers teach their students and friends communicate with each other.Finally one decides to write about it.There, from verbal to pysical.So verbally is more important.
What does "Nauzubillah" mean? I don't think I've ever heard it and I'm curious. That was a very good point you made about the connection from verbal to physical, I never thought of that. But it still doesn't answer our question. You're saying that physical changes could have happened, but we're still stuck because there's no real evidence to show that they really did. You also said:
Torah was the words of Allah.They changed the contents, definately they can change the Quran or the Gospel.They may be rejecting both but ask yourself, why are they creating fake hadiths???????
I agree that the Torah was the words of Allah, and I think that according to the Qur'an and Ibn Abbas, they still are.
For your last question, what does it matter? Muslims also created false hadiths, but that doesn't mean that the Qur'an was changed. Thanks for all your time. God bless!
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 13-12-01 AT 00:01 AM (GMT)[p]Greetings Asif and Ruqayya.
Jeremiah 8:8 might refer to the scribes keeping a commentary of the Torah. This commentary would later be called the Talmud and Midrash. It was separate from the Torah, and generally was an attempt to clarify passages of the Torah that were written to an nomadic community. By Jeremiah's time, the Jews were living in cities and had developed more sustained agriculture. As such, there was nothing inherently wrong with the Talmud or the Midrash traditions.
As Muslims recognize that the hadith sometimes is erroneous, Jews recognized that their traditions such as the Talmud and Midrash traditions sometimes contained erroneous interpretations of the law. Jeremiah spoke out against the more flagrant errors.
Jesus also spoke out about the elevation of mere human traditions to divine precept as well in Mark chapter 7. However, Jesus also interpreted the Scripture in a way that became what Paul would call a "tradition" (see 1 Corinthians 11:2 "I praise you because you remember me and hold fast to the TRADITIONS, just as I handed them on to you.").
Throughout the Bible, there is a distinction between "sacred tradition", which is the application of Scripture to the day, and "human tradition", which is the attempt to nullify God's words by taking them out of context for such selfish puposes that justice and love of others is lost. Sometimes this distinction is expressed by contrasting the "spirit of the law" to "the letter of the law". In contemporary Christianity, the notion that is considered wrong is variously called "legalism" and "causistry".
I love the example of Jesus with the adolatrous woman in John chapter 8. Jesus does not condemen the law that demands stoning of an adolatrous woman. Rather, he simply says that the one without sin should be the first to throw a stone! Was Jesus ignoring the commandments? Of course not! Rather, he was making a point that the law is meant to serve humanity, not that humanity is meant to serve the law (see Jesus saying on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).
In the gospels, Jesus makes it clear that the criterion for interpreting the law correctly is the two great commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul; and love your neigbor as yourself.
Back to Mark chapter 7: Jesus condemned a specific tradition of declaring your personal property as "qorban", meaning dedicated to the Lord. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with declaring your property "qorban". In fact, such an idea could be quite praiseworthy. However, some Jews in Jesus' day declared their property "qorban" in order to get out of taking care of their parents as their parents aged. Once their parents died, they would take the property out of "qorban" status and use it for themselves. This violated the commandment to honor your parents found in the decalogue!
So, the problem with tradition is when it is used to try to create loopholes in the law to get out of fulfilling social justice. In its context, Jeremiah was crying out about the same issues. Throughout the book of Jeremiah, he cries out against oppression of the poor Jews by the wealthy Jews. It is not a matter of the Torah being corrupt. Rather, it is a matter of people misinterpreting the Torah INTENTIONALLY to get out of fulfilling the demands of social justice.
Regarding Deuteronomy 31:24-29, the full verses read as follows:
"When Moses had finished writing the out on a scroll the words of the law in their entirety, he gave the Levites who carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord this order: 'Take this scroll of the law and put it besides the ark of the covenant of the Lord, your God, that there it may be a witness against you. For I already know how rebellious and stiff-necked you will be. Why, even now, while I am alive among you, you have been rebels against the Lord! How much more, then, after I am dead! Therefore, assemble all your tribal elders and your officials before me, that I may speak these words for them to hear, and so may call heaven and earth to witness against them. For I know that after my death you are sure to become corrupt and to turn aside from the way along which I have directed you, so that evil will befall you in some future age because you have done evil in the Lord's sight, and provoked him by your deeds.'"
Notice that this verse says the people will become corrupt -- not the text itself. Indeed, if the text became corrupt, it could not serve as a witness against the people! Jeremiah saw the prophecy fulfilled in his day when the lack of social justice lead to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. Early Jewish Christians saw the final destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora of the Jews from 70 AD until the twentieth century as a result of the rejection of the long awaited Messiah in Jesus.
Christians after the first centuries see the passage as referring less to the Jews specifically. Rather, the passage is a warning to all of us to reflect on our lives in the light of the Word of God (and Christians consider Jesus to be the Word of God). We are all sinners who may have corrupted our own understanding of God's demands of justice and righteousness upon us. We should all reflect on how we treat the poor, our elderly parents, etc...We are all called to the same justice demanded by the prophets of old.
The ideas contained in these Biblical passages are very similar to the ideas that Muslims recognize regarding the hadith and some cultural customs in Islamic countries. If a custom or tradition is generally consistent with the Qur'an and its principles, it is not condemned, but encouraged. However, if a custom or tradition arises that contradicts the Qur'an, it eventually falls by the way-side as leaders arise to condemn it.
Such is the case with Christian Tradition. In every age, there are customs and traditions that are of human origins, and the Church purges itself of these through constant reform. A great example of a later tradition that was purged through reform is the sale of indulgences in the middle ages.
Those traditions that are consistent with our Scripture are reinforced and confirmed through church councils and so forth. The sacred traditions stand the test of time and are consistent with Biblical principles, and are corraborated in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly.
As far as the translation of John 1:1, I have addressed this already Ruqayya. I have seen the oldest gospel manuscripts available in the Smithsonian museum in Washington, DC. They are no longer there, as they were moved to another museum. At any rate, I have seen them with my own eyes. I have also studied Greek. I also have copies of the Greek New Testament in my possession (Nestle Aland's critical apparatus).
The Greek does not use the word "Theou". It uses "Theos". There absolutely no way to translate this word as "God's" or "of God's". In your other postings regarding this, I explained that the person who did this in an English Bible is probably a Unitarian. The Unitarians you refer to in your other post did not exist as a religious body until the seventeenth century. They started in Harvard University in America. From your prior post, I think this translation in an old English Bible is a deliberate mistranslation. Everything I am writing is widely available on the web or any library. You really need to drop this argument. It is so incredibly weak that it makes you look foolish bringing it up all the time. I don't write this to you to be rude. Rather, I am just saying that on this point, JBJ and I have answered you and I am absolutely sure that I am correct!
I hope all that makes sense.
One final note: Muslims keep asserting that Jews and Christians corrupted their own Scripture. JBJ says that "Bible" means "Book". This is not actually correct. The word "Bible" is derived from "biblioteche", which is more accurately rendered "library". It is a collection of books written by many people.
Furthermore, with the New Testament, it is written in various geographic locations. For example, Paul is from Taursus, and writes primarily to people in what we call Turkey and Greece today. Mark is a Palestinian who writes to a Roman audience, Matthew addresses a Syrian audience, and so forth.
This collection of books and writings by different people is consistent on several key points that contradict the Qur'an. For example, all authors agree that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If this story were a corruption, one would not expect different people writing in different places to hold to the same story (even to the point of being willing to give thier lives). Furthermore, the authors, such as Peter and Paul, admit to having had disagreements on some matters (such as rules for gentiles regarding circumcision). Yet, they agree on the crucifiction and resurrection without argument. Again, this demonstartes that they were speaking from an incontrovertable experience.
If the Muslim assertion of corruption were true, one would expect there to be variant traditions of corruption. For example, one might expect Peter to deny the crucifiction, or James to deny the resurrection, etc...Yet, there are no contrary opinions found, except some rules about gentiles which get resolved in the texts themselves in Paul's favor. Furthermore, there are absolutely no extant texts about Jesus that can demonstrated by the most skeptical historical-critical methods to be dated earlier than New Testament texts. Finally, the various early translations of the New Testament into Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, etc... demonstrate the integrity of the texts. There are as few or fewer variants in the original manuscript traditions as there in the Qur'an. This is not what any historian (even Muslim or atheist) would expect if the texts were corrupted as Muslims assert.
In other words, if our texts are corrupted, as you assert, provide us the copies of an original or substantially variant reading that can be accurately dated to a period before the composition of the New Testament! Simply stating that Islam believes the texts were corrupted because this is the only logical way to interpret the Qur'an as Allah's words is not a rational argument. The New Testament varifies itself preceisely BECAUSE it is authored by many people who agree, while the Qur'an is nothing but one man's word of what he thinks Allah revealed.
Again, I hope this all makes sense.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Hi everyone,
I agree with everything Jcecil said above. I might only add that "law" in Jeremiah 8.8 can also refer to the entire set of laws. With this meaning, the verse could be figurative and then mean that other actions of the scribes besides writing the Torah, Talmud, and Midrash could be figurative. By acting dishonestly, they make the law which they represent other than what it is: a lie, false. But that's not really important.
Thanks to jececil for correcting me on "Bible."
Asif, you may want to check out the following web site to get access to the Bible:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
JBJ
Hi Asif!
Talking about false hadiths is getting pretty of topic. Perhaps it can be discussed later. I meant that there enough false hadiths around that it would be pretty hard to say that none of them were by Muslims, or people professing to be Muslim.
But going back to the original question, why did the Jews invent false hadiths, it means that those Jews were dishonest, it doesn't reflect anything on what Jews of previous generations did. After all, is a man punished for the sins of his son? Certainly not.
JBJ
Hi Asif!
I'm going to try to respond to the rest of what you wrote now. I hope we can agree on everything.
10.94 But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you.
You said:
In this verse, Allah says that if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Book before you. That is why sincere Jews like Abdullah ibn Sallam, sincere Christians like Waraqa or the Nestorian monk Bahira were willing to recognise the mission of Muhammed (SAAW).
I don't know anything about ibn Sallam, but he was a Jew, then he must not of accepted Jesus as the messiah, as the Qur'an says he is. (Speaking, of course, before his conversion.)
The Christian faith of Waraqa and Bahira could be questioned. A Nestorian is a member of a cult, it is not part of Christianity. They could not be considered Muslim Christians either because they did believe Jesus had divinity. Waraqa is supposed to be a Nebionite, another Christian related, but not Christian set of beliefs. For example, Waraqa believed that the Bible prophesied the coming of another prophet, when it only predicts the return of Jesus and of several false prophets.
The point is there were no Christians or Jews right before Muhammad that were following exactly what Muhammad said they should have been. The Jews all rejected Jesus as a prophet, the Christians all labeled Jesus as "more than a messenger."
But for the sake of clearer arguement, let's say there were. The verse still to ask those reading the Book. How could they read the Book? Obviously they would look at it. (Aren't I smart!) So if they looked at the Book, it must have been before them in its real form, the unchanged form. And therefore, the Book, whichever one it refers to, was not changed.
2:120 Never will the Jews or Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,- that is the (only) Guidance." Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah.
You said:
Just read this verse carefully. It states that the Jews and Christians are following their desires, and if we were to follow their way, then we would be on a path of destruction. So to say that the Qur'an says that during the Prophet's time, the Jews and Christians were on a right path is incorrect.
This doesn't say anything about the Books, only the people. I won't argue that the Jews and Christians had low desires. They were sinful, just as I am.
2:121 Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.
You said:
As Dr. Qaisar has pointed out, the verse is addressed to everyone. Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. Nowhere does this verse say that the Jews and Christians at the time of Prophet Muhammed (SAAW) are on the right path. Infact, it doesn't even address the Jews and Christians exclusively. But everyone, which would include Muslims as well.
If you want to interpret the verse to apply to everyone, you may. If you do, then it means the Jews and Christians who were studying were correct. Notice the present tense. Now obviously, if they were studying corrupted books, they couldn't be correct, so they must have been reading the uncorrupted Book. And therefore, of course, the Books at Muhammad's time weren't changed.
I'm out of time for now. Please read everything over carefully. I'll finish the message later. God bless!
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 13-12-01 AT 00:05 AM (GMT)[p]Greetings Asif.
As to your question about my translation of "deeds" rather than "work of your hands", I simply picked up my favorite Bible to find the verse you refered to. The translation is the New American Bible. I do not currently know the original Hebrew, though I would be happy to try to look it up if you really want.
At any rate, I would not object to the translation of "the work of your hands", since throughout the Bible, this phrase always refers to deeds. In other words, there is no indication in the phrase itself that it is meant to say the text is corrupted.
Regarding the passage from Matthew that you quote, this is a different emphasis and writing style of Matthew compared to Mark. The issue is the same, but presented differently than the way it is addressed in Mark 7. Here, Jesus is trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Jews when they try to use Scripture to condenm and judge others, while not using it to critique their own behavior. Again, the issue is not primarily whether tradition is valid. The issue is whether the scribes are interpreting the law in light of the two great commandments: to love God and love your neigbor. In actual fact, the scribes were using the law as a club to beat people over the head -- demonstrating neither love for God, nor love for neigbor.
But to answer your question about why Matthew doesn't use the word "qorban", we see that Mark frequently inserts Aramaic words in his gospel. Mark also uses clumsier Greek than Matthew. This indicates that the author of Mark uses greek as a second language. The author of Matthew is more familiar with Greek and was writing to a Syrian community of Jewish Christians outside of Palestine who would not have spoken Aramaic as their primary language. If the author of Matthew was Matthew-Levi, the tax collector, he would have been educated in Greek in his dealing as a tax collector. However, it is also possible that the author is another Matthew, or a student of the apostle Matthew. At any rate, this author is much more familiar with Greek, and writing to an audience equally familiar with Greek.
I wrote my original post rather late at night, and started to edit it this morning. I realized after editing that you have already responded. So I will repeat a question I added above.
The question is that IF the texts were corrupted, one would expect to find substantially variant readings. Christians and Jews both admit that there are minor variants in punctuation, spelling, or transposed numbers in translations. However, the same is true of the Qur'an, where seven minor variant readings arose from the Uthmanic version due to the fact that the Uthmanic text contained no diacritical marks and lacked certain phonetic sounds. I can't read Arabic, so I will admit that my information regarding these variants in the Qur'an comes form http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/.
So, the issue is that the Bible has wide manuscript evidence in the original languages and in translation, yet there are not quite the major variants a skeptic would expect. For example, all New Testament authors (and there are at least eight) place the crucifixion event at the time of passover under the procurate of Pontius Pilate and the reign of the high priest Caiaphas and the king Herod. This places the event very definitely around the early thirties on the Western calandar. There is archeological evidence and secular histories to confirm the timing of these events. Paul is begginning his writing by 50 AD at the latest, and he quotes creedal hymns that can be demonstrated through linguistic analysis to be formulated within three or four years of this crucifixion event.
None of the New Testament authors are writing in the same place at the same time to the same community. Yet every single New testament author refers to the crucifixion with this same specificity. The Qur'an says there was no crucifixion. If this event were fabricated, one would expect more variation in accounts than actually exists.
But this is just one example, and this example only applies to the New Testament. Above, JBJ refers to the fact that scrolls were found at Qumran (the dead sea scrolls) in the 1940's. What is interesting here is that a scroll of Isaiah was discovered that pre-dated our oldest complete manuscripts by almost 1,000 years. Again, no substantial variants were found. The only varianst found were minor spelling or punctuation that can be explained easily by the time the texts was written.
For an example of what I mean by no substantial variants, newer English Bibles use "you" rather than "thy". This is counted as a variant reading by Bible scholars. However, the variant does not change the meaning of the text. Rather, it confirms the meaning. There ARE variants in ancient Biblical texts written in different times and places, but they are variants that confirm that the text was not corrupted, rather than confirming your assertion that the texts were corrupted.
In most newer translations of the Bible, such as the New American Bible (Catholic), or the Revised Standard Version (Protestant), scholars attempt to admit any ambiguities with a variant in footnotes in your English Bible. If you read the Bible in its entirety, including those footnotes, you see that the variants that have some legitimate ambiguity do not change the overall meaning of a text, nor do they challenge any doctrinal position that cannot be demonstarted by a more clear text.
I can speak from expereince as one who has studied under people who translated the original scriptures into English that Western Bible scholars are extremely critical, careful, and honest in their approach to this. They intentionally admit ambiguity where it exists for the precise reason that they do not want Muslims, atheists, and so forth proving them wrong at a later date. In fact, ALL of my Bible teachers in the seminary would start their class by saying that an atheist could pass this class. By that, they meant that they were going to use the most critical, skeptical, and best secular methods and sciences to determine the validity and meaning of a text.
Christians believe that our Bible can withstand this kind of scrutiny. The types of questions I ask of the Qur'an are the same questions I ask of the Bible. With Christianity, there are answers to these questions. With Islam, every time I ask these types of questions, I am accused of misunderstanding Islam and making naive assumptions. But I am not really provided an answer most of the time. This makes me somewhat suspicious of your religion.
Regarding your assertion that I make naive conclusions about Islam, that MAY well be true. I have only been studying Islam with any seriousness since September 12, 2001 (the day after the WTC bombing). If I make mistakes in interpreting something, it is not done out of deliberate attempt to decieve. Rather, it is simply that genuine questions arise in my mind as an outsider trying to look in.
I wrote extensively of my thought process and experience of confusion under "Random Reflections on Comparative Religion". Recently, Fadhilah revealed that he or she is only 13 years old. I am 36 and have attended graduate school. My questions are not grounded in stupity or hard-heartedness. They are the questions almost any educated Westerner would want answered before embracing Islam or Christianity. They are questions that educated Christians can answer about their own religion.
So, the bottom line is that if you can provide good answers to my questions and clarify my naive misunderstandings, you are learning to communicate your religion better to more people than myself. And the key question I am asking right now is where these substantial variants are that prove your assertion of substantial corruption?
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 05-12-01 AT 08:08 PM (GMT)[p]Hi Asif!
You said concerning jcecil's interpretation of Jermiah 8.8 meaning the Talmud:
But i would like you to tell me what makes you arrive at such a conclusion.
The Torah is one of the most important things the Jews have, Jeremiah knew this. If the Torah had been changed, they would lose it. Jeremiah (and other prophets too) he certainly would have written more than one measely phrase about it. The Jews distorted the law by what they said, and the Qur'an says this several times. Jeremiah, or someone else, also would have taught exactly what he meant with no ambiguity. This is why the verse cannot mean the Torah was corrupted.
Hope that helps.
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 18-12-01 AT 03:47 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings again.
Thanks for answering this part of the question JBJ (regarding the interpretation of Jeremiah referring to early Talmudic traditions being corrupt, rather than the Torah). Your answer is a correct understanding of what I would have said regarding my interpretation of Jeremiah 8:8 referring to early Talmudic traditions, plus I would throw in a question.
Yes -- It would seem likely that if Jeremiah thought that the Torah from Moses itself were corrupted, he would have railed against such a thing with such precision that there could be no doubt of what he was writing about.
And JBJ is correct that the Jews placed a much higher value on the Torah than they did their Talmud, Midrash, Khabbalah, Apocrypha, Mishna, etc.... For that matter, they still do!
There is a philosophical question as to when the Jews actually began to see themselves as "People of the Book". In other words, when did the Torah become the Torah that we have today? This is an open debate among scholars. Some place this consciousness during the Davidic dynasty, others at the Babylonian captivity, while others argue for ealier or later dates.
Now the question to Muslims:
If the Jews corrupted the Torah as revealed by Allah to Moses (pbuh), where are the variants we would expect?
There should be an original Torah (we'll call it version "A"), then a slightly corrupted version (we'll call version "B"), then a more seriously corrupted version (version "C") etc...down to our own times. Even IF version A or B was destroyed, where are C,D,E,F, etc....?
This is what I am trying to ask about the New Testament as well. With the New Testament, the issue is more critical than the Torah. The issue is more critical because every book of the New Testament affirms Trinitarian theology in one way or another. Muslims disagree with more of the content of the New Testament than the Old Testament. It would seem to me that if the canonical gospels were distortions of the message of Jesus, there would have been a long development process with several variant readings ranging from the more pure to the most distorted.
Why aren't there two substantially variant versions of Mark's gospel? I pick Mark because it's the earliest gospel. One version of Mark might say Judas was crucified, and another that Jesus was crucified?
It is true that there were other gospels such as Thomas, James, and Barnabas. It is also true that there some variant readings of a verse here or there in the canonical gospels. However, there are NOT two substantially different versions of Mark, or three versions of Matthew, and so forth.
Furthermore, with ALL of the non-canonical gospels, we can establish later origins than the canonicals. Just as Muslims say that erroneous hadith were quickly rejected by Muslim scholars, the "gnostic gospels" and heretical theology was quickly denounced by Christians who knew the apostles or their immediate successors. For example, we see condemnations of Barnabas made by Saint Iraneas. A chain can be established with the papacy such that John Paul the II is the 278 succesor to Saint Peter. Other bishops can all be tied back to the Roman See. The Eastern Orthodox can also trace lineage to an apostle. And modern secular sciences confirm that the gostic gospels ARE late corruptions of the canonical traditions, and that the canonical gospels are the earliest written Jesus traditions in existence today!
Barnabas (which only exists in fragments) even uses all four canonical gospels as source material. The author admits he is "correcting" the other gospels. This places the composition of Barnabas AFTER the composition of John. The gospel of John was written between 90 and 100 AD. Thus, if Barnabas were truly a disiple of Jesus, as the author claims, he was around 130 to 140 years old when he wrote it! Besides that, the gospel of Barnabas, as it is sold in bookstores today, contains concepts that would be foreign to first century Jews such as "substance". This is a Greek idea that was not used the way it is used in Barnabas until the middle ages. There is no first century Aramaic word for "substance". Furthermore, there are historical inaacuracies about the time of the procurate of Pontius Pilate. Thus, the stuff sold in bookstores seems to be a late forgery based on fragments and later additions.
Perhaps (but not likely) the gospel of Thomas was as early as the canonicals, but no earlier. It only exists in late Greek translations (fifth century), and also seems to contain Greek concepts foreign to Judaism AND Islam, such as pantheism and dualism. Thus, while large portions of it are consistent with the canonical gospels, it cannot be the original words of Jesus as we have it today.
Likewise, the Protevangelium of James may have been written by the early second century. However, it is more explicitly Trinitarian than the canonicals and contains such concepts as the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary (with Jesus' brothers being from Joseph's prior marriage, Joseph being a widower). In fact, one of the reason Christians deny the canonicity of James is precisely because the theology is too well developed along Catholic lines to be considered an authentic first century writing. But if this were a "true" gospel, it doesn't help the Muslim cause.
Maybe the gospel of the Hebrews or the gospel of the Ebionites was first century? Possible, but not definitely. They seem to have used Matthew as a source, translating from Greek back to Aramaic. Yet there is nothing in the existing fragments that contradicts the canonicals. Thus, these texts do not help Muslims make their point either.
Aside from the internal evidence of such writings, there are external proofs of late origin in the "gnostic gospels". For example, the dates a text is externally quoted, physical properties of the manuscripts, word usage, etc...
So the existing "gnostic gospels" can be demonstrated to be of late and non-apostolic origin, and contain concepts that are foreign to Islam. Thus, referring to these does not help your cause.
And the same criterion (word usage, physical properties of manuscripts, external quoting, etc...) can verify with reasonable certainty that ALL the New Testament texts were finished by 110 AD at the latest. Note that 110 is a skeptical date -- there are valid arguments for earlier composition, but no valid scholarly arguments for much later composition! So the New Testament is the earliest known traditions of Jesus. Period.
What WOULD help your cause is being able to produce an authentic version of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or of a Pauline epistle, or of the letters of James, Hebrews, or Peter, etc... that is substantially different from what is in the Bible, and can be accurately dated to the first century. What I am looking for is an historically verifiable document that demonstrtaes the process of gross corruption of theology that Muslims assert.
In ALL other ancient literature, there are substantial variants. This is true of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Confusius, the Hindu vedic traditions, and so forth.
By substantial variants, I don't mean spelling variants, or transposed numbers, or simple scribal mistakes such as writing a word twice. Nor do I mean notes in the margins. Nor do I mean the choice of an ambiguous word in translation. Nor do I even mean an editing process (I obvioiusly edit my own work quite a bit -- yet it is still my thought). Nor am I even speaking of the compilation of various traditions into a single text (such as the possibility of Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deteronomist contributions to the Old testament).
In other ancient document research, I mean that there are entire lengthy passages missing from manuscripts produced at the same time, but in different locales. There are texts that oppose each other in meaning ascribed to the same author. There are ideas written into an original manuscript centuries after the original was produced. Later political and religious agendas are superimposed into an original author's mouth. Indeed, with most ancient literature, one cannot produce an original to begin with, and the oldest extant copies produced in different locations contain gross substantial variants among themselves! Combine these gross errors with the less substantial errors such as spelling errors and so forth, and you see that literary science is usually quite a challenge. Most of the time, you work with a paucity of text to compare as well.
What I am asking Muslims to produce is another version of the Torah than the one that people read today. Maybe you could produce some texts that were source material for today's Torah, such as the actual scroll of Moses? If such a text could be authenticated, and demonstrated to contain a substantially different theology than Judaic theology, that would be pretty convincing.
Or maybe you have a substantially different version of the gospel of John that nowhere calls Christ "monogeneses theos" in the entire book and excludes the "ego eimi" saying? Or maybe you have a later version of Ezekiel than our current versions that encourages polytheism? Or a letter of Paul that admits the resurrection is a hoax? These would be convincing documents if authenticated through historical-critical methods.
These are the kind of "substantial variants" I would expect if your theories of corruption were true.
Instead, what we find is that in the Old Testament, oral traditions were gathered into an authoritative text. Yes, editing occurred during this compilation process to make one complete text. Once that texts was complete and accepted as part of the canon, it passed mostly unchanged to our day. What changes there were are minor, and comparable to the variants in the Qur'an.
The issue of the type of substantial variants found in other ancient literature is not true for two pieces of literature. The Bible and the Qur'an.
Does that mean there are no variants at all. Of course not. There are minor spelling variants, copy errors, ambiguous translations of a word, notes in the margins, or clarifying insertions consistent with the original and such in BOTH texts as they are transmitted through time. Both the Bible and the Qur'an DO have variants, no matter how much Muslims wish that every letter was preserved to perfection.
Mohammed did not write down any of the Qur'an. The Qur'an was compiled from the memory of several people and from fragments. Dr. Qaisar has confirmed for me that there are seven variant readings based on the Uthmanic version, and he has admitted to me that the evidence that the Uthmanic texts dates to Mohammed's life-time only exists in hadith traditions which Dr Qaisar admits are not considered infallible or 100% reliable. I know he will probably say I am twisting the intent of his words, but he did state these facts.
There are contrary hadith traditions that state that Zaid was comissioned to compile the Qur'an after Mohammed's death, and the final version did not exist prior to Uthman. Furthermore, Zaid sought help. So there was an editing process, just like with the Biblical texts. Uthman then ordered prior variant copies to be burned. There was then, and continued to be some debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain suras for quite some time. My source for this information is at http://www.answering-Islam.org/Quran/Text/.
In appealing to this, I am not trying to say the Qur'an is more corrupt than the Bible. I am only saying that the evidence of textual purity for the Qur'an that would be accepted by a human secular atheist appears to be no greater than the evidence for textual purity in the New Testament -- with one major difference. The New testament kept the writings of at least eight different authors about as pure as the Qur'an was kept!
It should be harder to keep 27 books by 8 or more authors pure than to keep a single book by a single author pure!
But how do we know that there were no substantial variants in the Bible?
Because nobody can find these substantial variants we would expect when or where we would expect to find them.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek before the time of Christ. The translation of the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint would have been a perfect time to create a substantial variant within any single book in the library known as the Bible. If a scribe really wanted to change the law, that was the time to do it!
It is true that the Greek Septuagint included seven additional writings. However, it did not substantially alter the overall meaning of any existing text. Rather, the library known as the Bible was expanded to include seven more writings for those Jews outside of Palestine who wanted to keep a richer array of their traditions since they were far from home. Those seven writings do not oppose the message of the 39 books found in the later Palestinian canon, but are consistent with them.
At the time the Septuagint was translated, even the Hebrews did not consider the canon closed once and for all. The Palestinian canon was not established as a "closed" canon until after the time of Christ! There is no confusion in this regard. The story of Tobit is not cleverly inserted into the Torah so that nobody would notice. No. It has it's own heading and is kept separate as a separate book.
For clarification, let me state that the Torah specifically refers to final version of the first five books of the Old Testament. This is what Jews and Christians mean by the term "Torah". I am not saying that Muslims do not mean the same thing. However, I want to be clear on what I mean. Because what I am saying is that if those who liked the book of Tobit wanted to corrupt the Torah, they could have and would have inserted the story of Tobit into the book of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. But they didn't! They added it as a separate book to their canon!
Regarding the "closing of the canon", this did not occur until the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and the diaspora of many of the Jews and Jewish Christians from Palestine. The Christians came to accept the Septuagint and the New testament texts, and considered the canon closed with the end of the age of the apostles. The Jews established the canon at Jamnia in the second century and considered the canon closed with the actual destruction of the temple. The Palestinian canon excluded seven writings in the Septuagint because the original Hebrew texts could no longer be found for these writings.
Some scholars argue that this period was the actual time that both Jews and Christians came to see themselves as People of the Book (see my earlier philosophical question). This raises an interesting philosophical question about Islam. If earlier religious traditions did not conceive themselves as "People of the Book" until rather late, by what authority can Islam assert that ANY book contains the very words of Allah? In other words, prior to the closing of the Biblical canon, people generally looked to the community as the depository and source of divine reveltion -- not a book! This is why Catholics still maintain that sacred tradition is a reliable depository of revelation!
But back to the question of substantial corruption of texts: Again, if there were substantial corruption of the Torah, we would expect to find gross variant readings over time and geography that help me determine how the text evolved. This is what we find when we look at other ancient manuscripts -- even when those other manuscripts were banned for political purposes and burned in public. We can usually find substantial variants with other ancient literature -- but not the Bible....
The only evidence for any evolution or development of writings in the Bible is internal evidence in the same final copies we use today. These final copies are substantially the same texts accepted into the canon. In other words, we see the hand of an editor in the compilation (and we believe that the editor was inspired by the Holy Spirit), then the message of God is passed down unchanged and unaltered from the point it enters the canon. This is not what I would expect if there were constant deliberate corruption of texts.
Christians and Jews have literally hundreds of manuscripts produced over thousands of years and translated into hundreds of languages to verify that there is no substantial variation in our texts. There is no contrary evidence to this assertion that isn't mirrored with the same types of problems with the Qur'an.
If you Muslims know of these variants and have them hidden somewhere, please produce them and you'll settle this whole argument once and for all.
Peace!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 05-12-01 AT 08:05 PM (GMT)[p]Hello Asif!
I'm going to pick up where I left off. 3.93 is commented on in our other discussion on the Torah.
10.94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
You said:
In other words, people should ask the Jews because they've been reading the truth sent by God.
As brother Qaisar explained, not all Jews were on the right path. And as i mentioned earlier, the fault of the Jews was that they did not follow the Torah.
The Christians on the other hand invented lies such as "Trinity, Jesus being the son of God, etc." The Jews did not do this. The Jews were disobedient to God. They refused to obey what was revealed to them. They refused to accept that Muhammed (SAAW) is the Messenger of Allah, and the Christians also refused to do so.
I agree with all of that. Just as you said, "they've been reading the truth by God," so the Torah must have been uncorrupted at their time.
You also said:
And JBJ, this verse refers to people like yourself.
It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive. (3:69)
I'm not trying to lead you anywhere Asif. I'm only trying to understand what the Qur'an is saying. And if what I'm interpreting is what the Qu'ran is saying, then I want you and other Muslims to know this, where you lead yourself is only up to you. And if what I'm interpreting is wrong, then after enough discussion we can agree on it. If you, or anyone, can bring up a logical explanation, then I'll gladly take it.
29.46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one, and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).
I'm wrong. I was misreading the bolded phrase above thinking "you" meant the specific Jews and Christians the Qur'an is telling Muslims to speak to. "You" could refer to the entire Jewish and Christian peoples.
There's also difficulty in the translation. It could be read that the Qur'an is meant by "revelation" or that the Torah, Zabur, and Gospel are meant by "revelation." So I'm wrong. I am looking for the real answers. As I said, I'm open to others' explanations and will take the truth when I can understand it. Thank you for correcting me. In the same manner I hope you'll do the same when we finish with the rest of the quotes. I respect you for the openness to error you expresses in your first message.
Let's look at some ayat you quoted. I responded to the first three, 2.75, 4.46, and 5.13, already below.
3.78 There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
Like before, this verse deals with verbal change, not physical change. Note "tongues."
57.27 Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors."
Monasticism isn't dealt within the Bible, so the coming of it has nothing to do with changing scripture.
9.30,13 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
What does this mean "The Jews call 'Uzair (Ezra) a son of Allah"?
I'm not really sure why you put this quote up. It's not talking to all Christians, only certain groups around Mecca that had strayed from the real Christian teaching. We know this because the word "walad" is used which means "physical son." The Gospel taught Jesus was Allah's son in a spiritual or figurative sense, that would be "bin." The Bible also does not teach Christians to take priests to be lords. Last we know it doesn't address the Biblical teachings because the Bible teaches belief in One God, not three (called tritheism) as some groups believed.
5.17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.
This is the same idea. The Bible doesn't say God is Jesus, only cults. The Bible says Jesus is God, which is very different. For example, saying "God is good" is describing God, but saying "good is God" is saying that everything good is itself God. In the same way "Jesus is God" describes Jesus but "Allah is Christ" means that everything about Allah is Christ.
5.72,73 They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
Again, this is not talking about the Bible but of a distorted view of Christianity. It says again that Allah is not Christ, as the Bible agrees. It also agrees that there are no other gods to be joined with Allah. In the Bible Allah is not "one of three in a trinity." The Father, Son, and Spirit are each one in the trinity, but God is not, for God is not the same as any of the three.
I hope you found this enlightening. Keep studying and may God bless you in it.
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 05-12-01 AT 09:08 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings once again:
I just wanted to make a note regarding monasticism, priests, and the Qur'ans assertions that Christians worship saints.
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox ask deceased saints to pray for them. We do not worship saints. In our prayer and practice there is no difference between asking a saint to pray for you, and asking a living friend to pray for you. We believe that the saints are alive in heaven. The Bible does not specifically say that we should ask the saints to pray for us. However, the Bible does affirm that the saints are alive in heaven already, and that they do pray before God, and that our prayers are carried to God by angels. Thus, Catholics and Orthodox do ask the saints already in heaven to pray for us to Jesus, who is God.
By the way, there are saints on earth too -- any true believer who obeys God is a saint. Protestants do not share this practice of asking the deceased to pray for us because it is not explicitly found in the Bible, and they reject tradition as a source of revelation. The tradition itself is very early in the Church, and seems to have been practiced by Christians everywhere prior to the Protestant Reformation. This was not a major issue to the early Protestant reformers, but modern Protestants do make it a bigger issue in their disagreements with Catholics.
Regarding priests, we have honor for the office, since the person who holds it is a leader in the community and has vowed to try to represent Christ. However, we do not worship priests, or pray to them or anything of the sort. We simply respect the office, just as a Protestant might respect his pastor, and a Muslim might respect an Iman.
Regarding monasticism, this is not specifically in the Bible. However, the monks were attempting to imitate John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah and other celibate men who retreated to the deserts to commune more intimately with God. Like Saint Paul or Jesus, himself, they feel called to celibacy.
As monasticism developed, those called to this type of life-style found it was easier to live in a community where one can find support. Too much time alone in the desert can make some people crazy, and the gospel calls us to expres sour love for God partly through interaction with others.
The Catholic monk lives a life-style that includes prayer of the Psalms out loud 8 times per day, as well as daily Mass and times of quiet meditation. The rest of the day is spent in manual labor or study. They also perform ministries to those who seek their spiritual guidance and to each other. Eastern Orthodoxy may have slightly different practices.
What in the world could be wrong with the monastic life-style from an Islamic or Christian perspective? I lived the life-style myself for a year, and I don't regret it a bit. It was difficult for me though, so I eventually left. For those who are called to it, it can be a rich and rewarding life-style.
A final note: the Nestorians mentioned above were considered heretical by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, though there have been movements in the twentieth century to reconcile. The Nestorians were accused of believing that Jesus was born a man and was assumed into God like a drop of water in the ocean. Nestorians claim this is a misunderstanding of what they truly believe, and they accept the Nicene Council, as well as the next two subsequent councils. Thus, they are Trinitarian in some sense, and an ongoing dialogue with Rome is currently underway.
Peace!
jcecil3
Mardhiah
06-12-2001, 07:16
LAST EDITED ON 06-12-01 AT 06:25 AM (GMT)[p]Assalamualaikum Wr Wb,
Good day all,
Before anything, I like to say that we Muslims believe there is no God but Allah.Everything from Him is true.Muhammad s.a.w is His messenger and we believe whatever brought by him.Further more with the event of the monk Bahira foretelling his prophethood when he was to Syam in the company of his uncle Abu Thalib.Then about Waraqa regconising the mission of Muhammad s.a.w.Even if thier christian faith are said to be questioned, what matters is they learnt the books before Quran.
In the Quran stated, surah Al-Ma'idah ayah 82-85: Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun (see V.2:105), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud. And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognised. They say: "Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses."And why should we not believe in Allah and in that which has come to us of the truth (Islamic Monotheism)? And we wish that our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people (Prophet Muhammad SAW and his Companions)." So because of what they said, Allah rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever.Such is the reward of good*doers.
In this verse, it tells us that there were christians who waited for the arrival of the last Messenger.(( And (remember) when Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: "O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you confirming the Taurat [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.But when he (Ahmed i.e. Muhammad SAW) came to them with clear proofs, they said: "This is plain magic." )) (61:06).So this is the main belief of a Muslim, believe in Allah then Muhammad s.a.w.Stage one.Questioning what is written in the Quran, like we are doing now, is an upper stage.As for Christian, the main belief is already confusing.No matter how much the words are twisted, the meaning is still the same.It specifies more on mankind when the jinns are among with responsibility.(( O you assembly of jinns and mankind! "Did not there come to you Messengers from amongst you, reciting unto you My Verses and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say: "We bear witness against ourselves." It was the life of this world that deceived them. And they will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers.)) (6:130).
About the one without sin should be the first to be stoned.Isn't that unfair? It is not easy for a person to be sinless."The law is meant to serve humanity, not that humanity is meant to serve the law ".No.I can't agree on this.Human are naturally attracted sins.Bad deeds are usually pleasuring.Everyone admits it.We need law to discipline ourselves and to form a good moral.Is a child under the care of his parents the same as an unwanted child?
Jcecil3 said that variant reading in the Bible cannot be considered as substantial variants and there are differences in punctuation, spelling, or transposed numbers in translations.Well actually changes in languages SHOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN DISTORTED.The language of the Quran still remained as Arabic with the translation seperated.Errors in punctuation cannot be taken lightly because it could change the meaning.Lets say a sentence such as (we broke up the bench in the park.).Now add a full-stop in it, (We broke up.Bench in the park.).The meaning does differ, doesn't it? The actual Arabic writing does not has diacritical marks.They were invented later for people like me and you to sound them right.The slanted dash above a letter will sound like 'a', and the one below a letter will be 'e'.According to a hadis from shahih Bukhari, there are seven ways of reading the Quran: Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),
"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
The compilation of the Quran was done in the time of Abu Bakr's caliphate, an idea from Umar to erase his worry toward the depletion of the Holy Book.The job was given to Zaid bin Sabit.Each ayah had to come from 2 sources; memorization and writing (some of the sahabah did write down the Quran but they were not gathered together).Zaid could not find the memorizer of the ayah for the last version.After so much search he got it from Abu Khuzaimah Al-Ansari and that was the last verse of surah Al-Taubah.
Now lets move to the verse Jeremiah 8:8.It is said that the verse refers to the scribes keeping a commentary of the Torah which sometimes contained erroneous interpretions of law.Jeremiah spoke out against the more flagrant errors.Look again 'Jeremiah spoke out'.So......the content of verse are the words of whom? And it is also said that authors such as Peter and Paul, admit to having had disagreements on some matters.This shows that there is a contradiction in the Bible itself.The Quran is agreed upon scholars!
To JBJ, I was talking about ayah 3:93.I cannot say the REAL Torah must have been around the time of Muhammad s.a.w.My knowledge is limited.Only Allah knows."Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth" is more like an indication telling the Torah had been corupted.Don't talk much on what is lawful or unlawful to eat, read back your book if you are among the righteous.Something like that.
'Nauzubillah' means we seek protection upon Allah.
I guess I have to end here for now.Thank you for the informations and questions.They really widen up my views.I would try to answer the rest next time.
Till then Ma'assalam and goodbye.
Mardhiah Mansor
LAST EDITED ON 06-12-01 AT 07:50 PM (GMT)[p]Hello again Mardhiah,
You said
Then about Waraqa regconising the mission of Muhammad s.a.w.Even if thier christian faith are said to be questioned, what matters is they learnt the books before Quran.
You're right, they studied the books before the Qur'an. But why is it commendable to study books like the Gospel that were filled with anti-Islamic ideas? It all comes around again, that only explanation to make sense of everything in the Qur'an and hadith is to understand that they confirm the previous Books.
In this verse, it tells us that there were christians who waited for the arrival of the last Messenger.
That verse says nothing about Christians waiting for a prophet, only accepting Muhammad once he came. It is right that there were Christian converts, but that tells us nothing about whether the previous Books were changed.
Now lets move to the verse Jeremiah 8:8.It is said that the verse refers to the scribes keeping a commentary of the Torah which sometimes contained erroneous interpretions of law.Jeremiah spoke out against the more flagrant errors.Look again 'Jeremiah spoke out'.So......the content of verse are the words of whom? And it is also said that authors such as Peter and Paul, admit to having had disagreements on some matters.This shows that there is a contradiction in the Bible itself.The Quran is agreed upon scholars!
The book of the prophet Jeremiah was constructed by Jeremiah, it isn't known whether he put the words to paper, dictated it, or what, but they are the words of Jeremiah. The words "Jermiah spoke out" aren't contained in Jermiah, I'm not sure what point you're trying to put across.
Peter and Paul did have a disagreement, Peter thought that everyone should follow the Mosaic Law, but Paul said the Law was unnecessary and was right. No where in the New Testament does Peter teach that idea, it is only recorded as a historical event. The New Testament, and even the Gospel by itself, is quite clear that the Law isn't necessary because of Jesus' sacrafice, there is no disagreement and nothing like a contradiction.
The Bible is also agreed upon by many scholars, historical scholars, literary scholars, theological scholars, and many Jewish scholars, after studying the Torah and Zabur, have also come to believe in it.
3.93All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth
To JBJ, I was talking about ayah 3:93.I cannot say the REAL Torah must have been around the time of Muhammad s.a.w.My knowledge is limited.Only Allah knows."Bring ye the Law and study it if ye be men of truth" is more like an indication telling the Torah had been corupted.Don't talk much on what is
lawful or unlawful to eat, read back your book if you are among the righteous.Something like that.
3.93 doesn't show an corruption, it is the exact opposite. You're right that it says to read this book, something that could only happen if the Torah at Muhammad's time was a Book from Allah.
Why are you jumping around the ayah? I don't think it's that complicated. You believe in the Qur'an, so believe in what it's saying, and so believe in the Torah. I've been wrong in the past and accepted it, if I'm wrong again, then there must be something to show the truth.
Yes, only Allah knows. But His knowledge has come down to mankind that we may know it.
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 07-12-01 AT 01:58 AM (GMT)[p]Greetings Mardhiah!
I must say that your approach is unique and refreshing. I came to this site hoping to "meet" someone who could answer questions from a thouroughly Muslim perspective. I can tell by your writing that you know very much about Islam, and sometimes take for granted that we Christians are familiar with the same stories.
I do not know about JBJ, but I admit that I know almost nothing about Islam that I have not learned since September 12, 2001. My only sources of information so far have been the Qur'an as translated by N.J. Dawood, Houston Smith's "The Religions of Man", www.answering-islam.org, and this site here. I do have a few friends from Africa who are Muslims living in the United States. However, when I ask them questions, they don't seem to know their religion as well you seem to know it. I truly am seeking to understand Islam, though my writing comes across as argumentative most of the time. I talk the same way. It drives my wife crazy sometimes.
I also realize as I read your responses that I make assumptions about what I think you already know about Christianity. It is pretty clear to me now that you do not know Christianity very well, but you seem open to hearing what we have to say.
So, with this little introduction, let me proceed to ask you some questions and clarify a few of my statements:
> Before anything, I like to
>say that we Muslims believe
>there is no God but
>Allah.Everything from Him is true.Muhammad
>s.a.w is His messenger and
>we believe whatever brought by
>him.Further more with the event
>of the monk Bahira foretelling
>his prophethood when he was
>to Syam in the company
>of his uncle Abu Thalib.Then
>about Waraqa regconising the mission
>of Muhammad s.a.w.Even if thier
>christian faith are said to
>be questioned, what matters is
>they learnt the books before
>Quran.
>
I am not familiar with the monk Bahira. Who is he and what is his significance? Also, who, where or what is "Syam" and "Abu Thalib"?
>
> In this verse, it tells
>us that there were christians
>who waited for the arrival
>of the last Messenger.
I believe that this is a false statement and a misunderstanding of Christianity. To my knowledge, there has never been a group of Christians that believe there will another messenger before the second coming of Christ.
It is true that Christians believe that there can prophecy after the time Jesus last walked on earth. However, prophecy is viewed as a gift that is given to some extant to the whole Church. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets of the Old Testament is given to all baptised Christians.
From the earliest days after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, Christians have believed that Jesus is divine. Thus, in Jesus, God has revealed himself in absolute fullness. There can be no greater revelation than the very precence of God living among us. This is why the Church came to the conclusion that the canon of scripture was closed at the end of the apostolic age. By the way, "apostle" comes form the greek word for "one sent", and was used as a title in the New Testament only for those who had witnessed the risen Christ.
If a believing Christian today claims to have a vision of the Virgin Mary, an angel, or even of Christ, that vision must be tested in the light of what was already revealed in Scripture, because their can be no greater revelation than Christ.
>So this is the main belief
>of a Muslim, believe in
>Allah then Muhammad s.a.w.Stage one.Questioning
>what is written in the
>Quran, like we are doing
>now, is an upper stage.
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. If you are saying that faith in Allah is more important than faith in Mohammed and the Qur'an, I agree.
>As for Christian, the main belief
>is already confusing.No matter how
>much the words are twisted,
>the meaning is still the
>same.It specifies more on mankind
>when the jinns are among
>with responsibility.(( O you assembly
>of jinns and mankind! "Did
>not there come to you
>Messengers from amongst you, reciting
>unto you My Verses and
>warning you of the meeting
>of this Day of yours?"
>They will say: "We bear
>witness against ourselves." It was
>the life of this world
>that deceived them. And they
>will bear witness against themselves
>that they were disbelievers.)) (6:130).
>
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are merely saying that Christianity is confusing to you, please bear in mind that Islam is equally confusing to me.
>
> About the one without sin
>should be the first to
>be stoned.Isn't that unfair? It
>is not easy for a
>person to be sinless."The law
>is meant to serve humanity,
>not that humanity is meant
>to serve the law ".No.I
>can't agree on this.Human are
>naturally attracted sins.Bad deeds are
>usually pleasuring.Everyone admits it.We need
>law to discipline ourselves and
>to form a good moral.Is
>a child under the care
>of his parents the same
>as an unwanted child?
>
Well, here we clearly disagree. Regarding fairness, I think it absolutely fair that only the person without sin should throw the first stone.
Jesus said that the person who lusts in their heart has committed adultery. The reason is that the heart is turned away from Allah and turned toward sin, even if you haven't actually acted on the sin. Jesus also said that the person who is angry enough to kill someone has already committed murder in their hearts, even if they don't act on their rage.
The point is that if we killed everyone who committed adultery and murder in thought, word, or deed, we would all be dead. And Christianity teaches that from the angle of pure jusice under the law, we all do deserve death!
But Jesus, who was a man without sin, died on a cross.
Why did a just man suffer the death of a criminal? Early Christians realized that the just man bore the penalty of the unjust to break the power of the law. Chritianity began to realize that it is Satan who seeks to kill us eternally for our sins.
Satan acts as a prosecutor and accussor in the Bible, as well as a tempter. He tempts us to sin precisely so that he can accuse us before Allah. Allah is perfectly just, so all of us deserve death!
However, Allah wanted to save us from the power of Satan. Thus, Allah took on human flesh and bore the penalty we deserve. In doing so, he caught Satan, the Accuser, on a technicality. Satan had a just man put to death! Thus, Satan's case against the human race is thrown out of court. By becoming human, Allah also united humanity with his very nature. Thus, the door was opened for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Christians do not try to do good works primarily because they fear punishment from Allah. Nor do we do good or avoid sin primarily because we fear the punishment of human beings.
We do try to do good works and avoid sin because our very nature is changed by the Holy Spirit. We become more honest with ourselves and recognize our sinfulness. A desire wells up in our hearts to repent. A gradual process begins whrer we slowly move from fear of Allah to love of Allah. Love becomes our primary motivation for doing good works.
Thus, in Christ, a new law was offered to humanity. The law of grace! The law of grace can be compared to the law of justice like the law of areodynamics to the law of gravity. The laws of areodynamics allow humanity to fly in airplanes, appearing to break the law of gravity. Yet, gravity still operates. So it is with grace.
Grace frees us from the restraints of fear of justice, and empowers us to love Allah with all our hearts, minds and souls! We are not saved by our own works. Rather we are saved by the free gift of grace. All you need "to do" to be saved is accept Christ into your heart, placing your trust more in Allah than in your own works.
If you trust your own works, or a false god, and reject the free gift of grace, you will live under the law of justice. Under justice, we all deserve eternal death and damnation!
There are degrees of reward and punishment, so works do count for something. But grace alone can save you from eternal damnation. Grace is the power and life of Allah in your heart, made possible through Jesus Christ.
So, punishment by another human being for sins seems to a Christian to be an unnecessary cruelty carried out by one who is also a sinner. God can take care of all punishment that needs to be dealt out at the end of the world. Punishment should never have any other goal but helping a person to come to love Allah! Any punishment (such as stoning) that does not do this is against the basic message of the gospel. Killing a person does not allow them to repent.
> Jcecil3 said that variant reading
>in the Bible cannot be
>considered as substantial variants and
>there are differences in punctuation,
>spelling, or transposed numbers in
>translations.Well actually changes in languages
>SHOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN
>DISTORTED.The language of the Quran
>still remained as Arabic with
>the translation seperated.Errors in punctuation
>cannot be taken lightly because
>it could change the meaning.Lets
>say a sentence such as
>(we broke up the bench
>in the park.).Now add a
>full-stop in it, (We broke
>up.Bench in the park.).The meaning
>does differ, doesn't it? The
>actual Arabic writing does not
>has diacritical marks.They were invented
>later for people like me
>and you to sound them
>right.The slanted dash above a
>letter will sound like 'a',
>and the one below a
>letter will be 'e'.According to
>a hadis from shahih Bukhari,
>there are seven ways of
>reading the Quran: Narrated 'Umar
>bin Al-Khattab:
>
I took for granted that you knew some things about the Bible that you apparently do not know.
Yes, you are theoretically correct that spelling or punctuation errors can substantially alter a text on philosophic principle, as your example with the phrase about park benches demonstrates.
However, what I am saying is that there are literally hundreds of ancient scrolls and thousands of fragments or quoted sections of the New Testament available to scholars. While there are spelling errors in a particular scroll, or a transposed number in another scroll, etc....nobody has ever found an error that substantially alters the meaning of an entire texts.
Furtheromre, there is such wide manuscript evidence, that we can compare all existing copies to be reasonably certian that the original intent of the authors has been faithfully preserved. For example, if I asked 100 people to hand copy this post, almost all of them will make at least one copy error. Yet, by comparing all 100 copies, I could expect to be able to work backwords to what the original text said. Not all 100 will make the same error.
The errors that exist in this scroll of the Bible, or that scroll are no more significant that the errors found in some copies of the Qur'an. I admit that I have not studied the errors in text transmission in the Qur'an in any depth. However, it seems clear in the short time I have been studying that there are about as many errors as I find in the ancient biblical manuscripts.
I am not trying to debunk the Qur'an when I say this. I am merely saying that there are copies of the Qur'an that had spelling errors, or were copied in a variant dialect, and so forth. Yet, by comparing all existing copies of the Qur'an, a Muslim expects that he or she could faithfully get back to the Uthmanic version. This is what Christians find true with the Bible.
If the Christian position is not true, one would expect such huge varaition that there would literally be different Bibles. That is why I keep asking Muslims where is a second version of Mark's gospel with a substantial variant like a denial of the crucifixion? This is the kind of varaint I would expect if there were deliberate corruption. Even if the corruption happenned over time, I would expect transitional texts that demonstrate the evolution of the corruption. But there are none.
In fact, when we compare the hundreds of manuascripts in several languages, we have no substantial variation in doctrinal points. All we have is minor spelling errors, transposed numbers, a word copied twice, some notes in the margins -- and none of these varaints is significant. They are not significant NOT because they couldn't be theoretically significant. What I am saying is that they are publically available, have been scrutinized by believer and non-believer alike, and nobody has ACTUALLY found a substantial variant that changes doctrine!
> I heard Hisham bin Hakim
>reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the
>lifetime of Allah's Apostle and
>I listened to his recitation
>and noticed that he recited
>in several different ways which
>Allah's Apostle had not taught
>me. I was about to
>jump over him during his
>prayer, but I controlled my
>temper, and when he had
>completed his prayer, I put
>his upper garment around his
>neck and seized him by
>it and said, "Who taught
>you this Sura which I
>heard you reciting?" He replied,
>"Allah's Apostle taught it to
>me." I said, "You have
>told a lie, for Allah's
>Apostle has taught it to
>me in a different way
>from yours." So I dragged
>him to Allah's Apostle and
>said (to Allah's Apostle),
>"I heard this person reciting Surat
>Al-Furqan in a way which
>you haven't taught me!" On
>that Allah's Apostle said, "Release
>him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O
>Hisham!" Then he recited in
>the same way as I
>heard him reciting. Then Allah's
>Apostle said, "It was revealed
>in this way," and added,
>"Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited
>it as he had taught
>me. Allah's Apostle then said,
>"It was revealed in this
>way. This Qur'an has been
>revealed to be recited in
>seven different ways, so recite
>of it whichever (way) is
>easier for you (or read
>as much of it as
>may be easy for you)."
>
I understand and accept that there were seven variant readings of the Qur'an. The question is how significant these variants were? They seemed pretty significant to the narrator of this hadith at first. I don't speak or read Arabic, so I don't really know the answer to this question. But it seems to me as I read about Islam and it's history on www.answering-islam.org, that there may have been some pretty significant variants in Qur'anic transmission. Maybe this site is so biased as to make the variants sound more signifant than they really are. However, I also find it hard to believe that every letter was preserved to perfection, as Muslims on this here site seem to suggest.
On other postings, I recognized that I was misunderstanding some points in the Qur'an because Dawood translated a phrase differently than Yusef Ali or Pickthall. There are obviously variant readings in English. The Bible is translated into hundreds of languages. Christians believe that Allah's message CAN be translated. Everyone does not need to learn Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew and Greek only needs to be learned by the skeptic who wants to verify our claims, or the person who feels called by Allah to be a translator. By the way, I can read Greek (slowly) and have dabbled with Hebrew.
>
>
> The compilation of the Quran
>was done in the time
>of Abu Bakr's caliphate, an
>idea from Umar to erase
>his worry toward the depletion
>of the Holy Book.The job
>was given to Zaid bin
>Sabit.Each ayah had to come
>from 2 sources; memorization and
>writing (some of the sahabah
>did write down the Quran
>but they were not gathered
>together).Zaid could not find the
>memorizer of the ayah for
>the last version.After so much
>search he got it from
>Abu Khuzaimah Al-Ansari and that
>was the last verse of
>surah Al-Taubah.
>
As an outsider to Islam who has only just begun to study your religion, it seems that most Muslims do not critically reflect on what they are saying when you speak of this compilation process by Zaid. It is not that I believe that what you say is proof the Qur'an is false. Rather, your own statements are no more certain than anything said of the Bible. Christians admit that each book of the Bible was "compiled". Another word for this compiling a text is "editing". In other words, you can never be absolutely certain from a purely rational perspective that Zaid faithfully compiled the Qur'an exactly as it was revealed to Mohammed. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. Whether he did or not is not the issue. The issue is that as soon as you admit that Zaid compiled the text, your faith in the integrity of the Qur'an rest entirely and 100% on the integrity of Zaid!
Christians believe that the "compilers" or "editors" of the original texts accepted into the canon of the Bible were inspired the Holy Spirit, and share in the prophetic gift. So we have no problem with admitting compilation and editing. It is only the final text accepted in the canon, and only the original manuscript of that final text that is considered infallibe and fully inspired -- no matter whose hands went into the process of completing that original final text.
But Muslims do not seem to believe that Zaid was inspired by Allah and shared in the prophetic gift. Rather, Mohammed alone is the prophet of Allah. But you cannot prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Zaid did not alter the text. Thus, if I understand everything you are saying correctly, you seem to be in a bit of a quandry from a philosophical and rational stand-point. Maybe I am just grossly misunderstanding what you are trying to say. If so, please clarify.
>
> Now lets move to the
>verse Jeremiah 8:8.It is said
>that the verse refers to
>the scribes keeping a commentary
>of the Torah which sometimes
>contained erroneous interpretions of law.Jeremiah
>spoke out against the more
>flagrant errors.Look again 'Jeremiah spoke
>out'.So......the content of verse are
>the words of whom? And
>it is also said that
>authors such as Peter and
>Paul, admit to having had
>disagreements on some matters.This shows
>that there is a contradiction
>in the Bible itself.The Quran
>is agreed upon scholars!
>
You misunderstood what I said. Yes, Peter and Paul had a disagreement. However, they came to agreement on the issue. The specific issue was whether the rules of circumcision and eating kosher food applied to gentiles, and how to treat gentiles in general.
Paul argued that if Christ bore the penalty for our sins, we are set free from ceromonial aspects of the law that only arose in the time of Moses. Paul argued that we are saved by grace through faith, like the faith of Abraham. The Bible called Abraham a "just man" before Abraham accepted circumcision, and the Bible does not record Abraham ever following dietary regulations. Furthermore, the Christian community remembered Jesus having said that it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out of his heart that makes him a sinner. Thus, Paul argued that any law not in force prior to Moses should not be imposed on gentile Christians, and that gentiel Christians should be treated with full equality.
At first, Peter and James disagreed with Paul. However, Peter was given a vision from Allah of non-kosher food set before him. Allah told him in the vision to eat it. Peter denied the food at first, but then came to realize that whatever Allah told him to do, he should obey. So Peter came over to Paul's side.
This caused discension among the Jewish Christians. So a Council was called. This was truly the first Ecumenical Council of the Church (not Nicea). James presided, but Peter used his influence as leader of the 12 to pursuade everyone that Paul was right based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Christ and his personal revelation.
Thus, there is no self contradiction in the Bible. Rather, there is a story of conflict resolution that has served as a model for conflict resolution in churches for 2,000 years.
I hope I answered some of your questions, and I hope you can answer some of mine. Sorry if I sound argumentative and long-winded.
Peace an Blessings!
jcecil3
Mardhiah
09-12-2001, 06:23
LAST EDITED ON 09-12-01 AT 10:58 AM (GMT)[p]
Assalamualaikum Wr Wb,
Greeting all,
Let me start with answering JBJ.I conclude that your very main question is whether the previous Books were changed during the time of Muhammad s.a.w(peace and blessing be upon him) or not.I want to get it straight.I do not know.That was why I put our belief at the beginning of the post.Muslims believe in the Quran.There could be a possibility that there were divisions among the christians themselves.
You do admit they are the words of Jeremiah.I was trying to show that how can you claim Bible now is from Allah when the verse 8:8 is the words of Jeremiah? And what I meant by scholars are the Muslims who wrote about Tafseer, Hadis, Islamic faith and Syar'iah (Islamic law).Their books are all based on the Quran and Hadis.
- You believe in the Qur'an, so believe in what it's saying, and so believe in the Torah.
Allah is my God.Muhammad s.a.w is my leader.Quran is my book and no other books can go higher.Torah was for the followers of Moses a.s(peace be upon him) and Bible was for the followers of Jesus a.s.We together should agree on the Torah being distorted.Why are you defending it?
And for verse 57:27, Allah says He had sent down messengers one by one before, right up to Jesus a.s(peace be upon him).He (Jesus) had taught the people obedient, love to Allah and mankind, brought them back to the path of having more attention about The End rather than finishing life with the easeness of the world.Thus the followers of Jesus a.s was known with spiritual untill they looked for places away from society to have peace inner selves."But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves." From the deep feeling of religion they went to the extreme, making their own rules (i.e putting marriage aside and having lives more on religion and services)."We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah." It is clear from this statement that such rule is not from Allah but them to spend more time in worshipping Allah."but that they did not foster as they should have done."This is because it is not easy to keep the law of forbidding marriage.I believe there was an argument between Catholic and the Protestants after that.
For verse 9:30,31, 'Uzair(Ezra) is how the jews pronounce the name of a prophet who had done one great good office to them.In the Jewish history 'Uzair was someone whom they glorified untill they term him as the son of Allah.Altough it does not reach the belief similar to the christians towards Jesus."They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah." This statement does not mean by worshipping their priests and anchorites but to follow what they have arranged and made is considered as taking them as lords.
To jcecil3, you did not sound argumentative at all.It is natural to defend what is right to us.I suggest you get a translation either from Yusuf Ali, Pickthal or shakir.There are also tafseer where they elaborate every ayah with details and are usually published in volumes.I believe the site www.answering-islam.org is not by Muslims.You can tell by the way they present articles.Muslims will never put a verse from the Bible at the beginning.Anyaway, monk Bahira was a priest.In some books, they mention a Christian priest and in the others Jewish priest.I think he was a christian because they said the priests like to give out food to merchants passing by.Usually the Christian religion is known with services.Syam is a place, I'm not very sure where but it is in the Jazeerah Arabia(Arab land).The priest met Muhammad s.a.w together with his uncle Abu Thalib(Muhammad's uncle) at a place named Busrah.After he getting to know Muhammad s.a.w, he told Abu Thalib to bring him back and not to let the Jews saw him.Fear that Muhammad would be killed.Jews cannot accept a prophet from people other than them.
You said something about the second coming of christ.I never know there was one.Was that when the New Testement was made?
I need to edit my previous statement about believing in Allah, Muhammad s.a.w and the Quran.English is not my native language and I believe there is error in my ussage of language.When one believes in Muhammad s.a.w definately he believes in Allah because messengers are sent down by Allah to bring people to light.And if he believes in Muhammad( under a condition he doesn't take Muhammad s.a.w to be greater than Allah) then without anymore questions he will believe whatever brought by Muhammad.Quran was sent down from Allah verse by verse to Muhammad s.a.w for him to correct mistakes made by people.So what I was trying to say is that believing in Allah and Muhammad s.a.w is the primary level in Islam.This is the reason why a person has to bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah if he wants to embrace Islam.He must not just stop right there instead upgrade himself to the next level which is the study of Quran then hadis.It may help much if he learn more on Islamic history.As for Christian, the confusion(I was talking about trinity) is just at the doorstep.How can one explores the whole house after that?
In Islam, we believe there are other invisible livings in this world; angels and jinn.They could be around here or there.Our eyes are made only for a few colours in the spectrum of light.For some animals, their eyes can go beyond and so it is not surprising when suddenly a dog howls.
Angels are made out of light.They never commit sins because it is their natural being to have no desires at all.Jinn are more like mankind only they are made of fire and us from soil.They are muslims and non-muslims among them.We call the non-muslims Shayatin,singular Shaitan(satan) with their cheif Iblis.All those types of ghost such as ghouls, vampires, goblins, aliens, etc are jinn.They can made themselves visible if Allah permits it.When a Muslim sees one, he should take it as a test; either to believe Allah is more powerful or to follow superstitions.On my previous thread, I was telling law is fallen upon mankind and jinn which I think it is not in Christian.Am I right? I apologised if I am not.By the way, what is Islam so confusing to you?
It is very interesting to read about Satan wanting to kill us, the one you gave above.I never know he was involved.Well actually satans just want us to be with them.Surah Al-hijr, ayah 26-43(15:26-43):
26. And indeed, We created man from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud.
27. And the jinn, We created aforetime from the smokeless flame of fire.
28. And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud.
29. "So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him."
30. So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together.
31. Except Iblis (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators.
32. (Allah) said: "O Iblis (Satan)! What is your reason for not being among the prostrators?"
33. [Iblis (Satan)] said: "I am not the one to prostrate myself to a human being, whom You created from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud."
34. (Allah) said: "Then, get out from here, for verily, you are Rajim (an outcast or a cursed one)." [Tafseer At-Tabari]
35. "And verily, the curse shall be upon you till the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)."
36. [Iblis (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Give me then respite till the Day they (the dead) will be resurrected."
37. Allah said: "Then, verily, you are of those reprieved,
38. "Till the Day of the time appointed."
39. [Iblis (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Because you misled me, I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I shall mislead them all.
40. "Except Your chosen, (guided) slaves among them."
41. (Allah) said: "This is the Way which will lead straight to Me."
42. "Certainly, you shall have no authority over My slaves, except those who follow you of the Ghawin (Mushrikun and those who go astray, criminals, polytheists, and evil-doers, etc.).
43. "And surely, Hell is the promised place for them all.
Their mission right now is to have mankind astray.So we can dwell together with them in the hell fire.They can get into every parts of a body such as heart, blood vessel and brain.Auzubillahi Mina Syaitani Rajim(I seek protection upon Allah from Satan the outcast).Everyone will face death to return back from where we come from because this world is only a temporary live.Death can be naturally, by accident, sickness or disaster.Surah Al-A'raf ayah 19 to 25(7:19-25):
19. "And O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in Paradise, and eat thereof as you both wish, but approach not this tree otherwise you both will be of the Zalimun (unjust and wrong*doers)."
20. Then Shaitan (Satan) whispered suggestions to them both in order to uncover that which was hidden from them of their private parts (before); he said: "Your Lord did not forbid you this tree save you should become angels or become of the immortals."
21. And he [Shaitan (Satan)] swore by Allah to them both (saying): "Verily, I am one of the sincere well*wishers for you both."
22. So he misled them with deception. Then when they tasted of the tree, that which was hidden from them of their shame (private parts) became manifest to them and they began to stick together the leaves of Paradise over themselves (in order to cover their shame). And their Lord called out to them (saying): "Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you: Verily, Shaitan (Satan) is an open enemy unto you?"
23. They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You forgive us not, and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers."
24. (Allâh) said: "Get down, one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Hawwa (Eve), and Shaitân (Satan), etc.]. On earth will be a dwelling*place for you and an enjoyment, - for a time."
25. He said: "Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out (i.e.resurrected)."
The grace you talked about sounds more like hidayah(guidance) in Islam.Hidayah is a gift to those who seeks for the truth.Someday the door of his heart will open to it.Guidance can be defined as 2 types.First is the one from Allah to realize a person of the right path which we cannot see.Next is one brought by any creatures and it is up to that person to notice it or not.According to language experts the first is taufik and the second is hidayah, or either way, I can't remember.
Realization alone is not enough.One has to teach himself how to maintain his condition up till the end because desires go up and down anytime.Punishments will remind him of Allah whenever his desire of commiting sin goes up.Rewards encourage him to do more good deeds.Muslims are told to be better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better than today.If he has an intention of doing a good deed, he will be rewarded.And when he does it he will be rewarded again.However, a person will not be punished if he has not commit a sin even he has the intention of doing it.Allah is the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Let me make it clear that the seven variants in the reading of the Quran do not change its meaning.I sound flour as flour but to some they pronounce it as flower yet it is the same thing.The narrator of the hadis, Umar, was just being precaution, he did not want anyone creating anything new.During Uthman's (I made a mistake by spelling his name Osman on the other post) ruling, reading was made into one kind, which is the way the Quraisy tribe(Muhammad s.a.w came from this tribe) speak.The rest were burned, leaving only the four Quran they(Uthman and hs companions) have setted. You may notice the Arabs speak different dialects from a place to another, however when come to reading the Quran they have to read it the way Quraisy tribe does.So far I haven't come across someone reads it other than what I do.Just the melody differs.Uthmanic version of the Quran is the one with all the marks and punctuations.It is for non-Arab speakers to sound the words and know where to stop without changing meanings.Like I said earlier the original Arabic font does not contain any diacritical marks.
There were still Quran memorisers while the compilation was carried out.The thought of preserving Quran came out due to decreasing of memorisers after wars with hypocrites.
Thank you for spending time reading my thread.I hope it answers your questions too.
Goodbye.
Mardhiah Mansor
Hello Mardhiah,
You said that you don't know about related to the changing of the Books, and I respect you for that. It takes a lot for someone to admit she doesn't have all the answers. But keep looking for this one, there must be an answer.
Yes, those were the words of Jeremiah, they were also the words of God. It isn't far fetched at all. You believe the Qur'an were the words of Muhammad and of God; Jeremiah is the same way. God gave him the words to say, and he said them. Verse 8.4 in Jeremiah says, "Say to them, this is what the Lord says . . ." God gave Jeremiah words to say, and he said them. You said:
Allah is my God. Muhammad s.a.w is my leader. Quran is my book and no other books can go higher. Torah was for the followers of Moses a.s(peace be upon him) and Bible was for the followers of Jesus a.s.
Allah is my God too. I believe that Muhammad was a "clear warner" as the Qur'an says, and I follow Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them. So I also believe that Jesus was the "light of the world" as he said, not only the light of Christians, but for everyone, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, all together. Everyone should follow Isa, and everyone should follow the Gospel given to him too.
You don't need to place the Bible higher than the Qur'an, you should read both together. If you didn't, you would be dishonoring the Qur'an. As it says, "Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord."
We together should agree on the Torah being distorted. Why are you defending it?
I defend the Torah because Muhammad defended it, and Jesus before him saying, "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or the Prophets (Jeremiah, Dawud, etc); I have come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
About 57.27, I completely agree with everything you said.
What is your native language, by the way?
In the Gospel, right after Jesus ascended, an angel said, "This same Jesus will come back in the same way you have see him go into heaven." While on earth, Jesus established the beginning of God's spiritual kingdom, the one living in the hearts of all accepting it. This was begun at the time of the New Testament. When he returns again, he wil establish the physical kingdom that the Jewish prophets had prophesied for hundreds of years. When this happens, Satan and his jinn will lose all their control over the earth and over people, they will be sent to hell with the unforgiven people of the world. God will recreate both heaven and earth to be in perfection, cleansing it from all sin. You said:
As for Christian, the confusion(I was talking about trinity) is just at the doorstep.How can one explore the whole house after that?
The trinity isn't really at the doorstep, it's inside. Jesus said, "I am the door, whoever enters through me will be saved." He meant that he is the way inside to Allah. Whoever trusts that Jesus is who he said he is will come to Allah.
Everything else is just inside. Just as it's hard to see inside a house from the outside, it's hard to understand the trinity without going through Jesus.
On my previous thread, I was telling law is fallen upon mankind and jinn which I think is not in Christianity.
I'm not sure what you mean, but mankind was under the Law of Moses. But Jesus took the Law off of us and onto himself.
The grace you talked about sounds more like hidayah(guidance) in Islam.
That's close, but not quite. It's hard to explain exactly, but grace is the system Christians are under. Before grace was revealed by Jesus, the only system known was the Law of Moses, this includes the Torah. Under this, Allah gave different rules for everyone to follow to reach Him. There was a big problem with this though, mankind always broke it. There was not a single person who could follow everything in the Torah, eventually every person would sin at least once. Allah could not just forgive people, that would be ignoring sin. If He ignored sin, then people would just go on sinning with no reason to stop.
This is why Jesus came. The angel said to Mary, "I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son." Jesus was perfect, sinless, without fault. Only he could reach Allah by living under the Law. Allah wanted people to reached him, and Jesus gave himself up to help saying, "I have come to do the will of Him who sent me."
Jesus did not deserve to suffer for sin, for he never sinned. But because he loved Allah, and loved us, he took on the suffering that we deserved from our sin. This is grace. Grace is to give the sufferings of you sins to Jesus. By this are sins are dealt with and are forgiven, then we can have closeness with Allah.
Blessings,
JBJ
hassanalmuslim
10-12-2001, 00:46
Salaam.
JBJ, I think your basic mistake is, that you are obviously thinking that in Qur'an ALLAH (SWT) Has told humankind to believe in the today existing remains of the original revelations, while He Has only emphasized the fact, that there is still much truth in the today existing scriptures, although they ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL REVELATION ITSELF! You pick out one verse from Qur'an and then build your OWN opinion and interpretation. This is the false concept of interpreting a scripture. In Quran, ALLAH (SWT) Has Explained, that it (the Qur'an) is a self-explaining book. That means, in order to get the complete and true image and interpretation of a certain topic, ALL THE VERSES IN QURAN WHICH ARE RELATED TO THIS TOPIC MUST BE STUDIED COLLECTIVELY, NOT INDIVIDUALLY! Unfortunately, many so-called Islamic scholars have made the same mistake as you made, that is, interpreting a verse individually. This leads to a total misunderstanding of the true message of the Quran and is also the main reason why the impression can develop, that there are contradictions in Qur'an.
May ALLAH (SWT) lead us all to the truth.
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day to all.
Jcecil...I am belatedly reviewing this ongoing discussion...and could not pass up replying to this particular section of this discussion, even before I continue to read thru it. Please forgive me if I am repeating something that someone else has already brought to light. However, if I do not answer at this time...I will lose my own train of thought.
Firstly, I would like to point out that this particular thread is becoming quite long and confusing for following...as well as each post is seeming to contain much subject matter...which is also proposing more confusion. I shall attemp to direct my post to only one or maybe two major points, inshaAllah.
Please note that you, jcecil said:
>The question is that IF the
>texts were corrupted, one would
>expect to find substantially variant
>readings. Christians and Jews both
>admit that there are minor
>variants in punctuation, spelling, or
>transposed numbers in translations. However,
>the same is true of
>the Qur'an, where seven minor
>variant readings arose from the
>Uthmanic version due to the
>fact that the Uthmanic text
>contained no diacritical marks and
>lacked certain phonetic sounds. I
>can't read Arabic, so I
>will admit that my information
>regarding these variants in the
>Qur'an comes form http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/.
I need to correct you a bit on this assumption of the Quran and the 7 dialects or 'seven minor varian readings' as you have termed it. This is not something that came about with the Uthmanic text (which was written after the death of prophet Mohammed, SAAW)...but rather something which occured during Mohammed's(life)...and is in itself something of the revelation of the Quran. Angel Gabriel is the messenger which was endowed with the priveledge and responsibility of revealing the message of the Quran to Mohammed (SAAW) in order that he, the prophet, would in turn reveal it to mankind. During the continuance of the revelations and throughout the years of the reviewing of that message between the receptor (Mohammed, SAAW), and the messenger (Gabriel)..was the occurance of the seven variations of recitations. This has something to do with dialect, or variations in pronunciations of the same words. It would be similar, in comparison, say, of the English language...in the United States, for example...those of the south speak a slightly different dialect of the same language than which those of the northeast...and different of those of the west and midwest...as well as the different in slang or dialect from England and then from Australia. All the same basic language, yet difference in pronunciation, difference in some minor words which all mean the same thing...and difference in intonation. This is the best comparison that I can describe for you in representing what it means of the 'variation of the 7 readings' of the Quran. It is something of a blessing from Allah, that is accomodating ppl's in different areas and of different backgrounds, as well as accomodating to the differing abilities of the tongues themselves to conform to that which is easiest for pronunciation of the individual. All 7 variations are divinely revealed, and all are acceptable for recitation of the Quran...and it is an ease for all to accomodate themselves to achieve their duty and desire to read and recite the verses in the version that best suits them.
I realize that you have taken this 'information' from a site on the net...and I myself have not referred to it..to see exactly the quote there...but it is apparent that you have misunderstood a bit about what exactly is meant by the 7 variations of readings...it is not necessarily the printed text...but rather the way that the one printed text is read or recited...dealing with pronunciation. Not text. The text itself is one and the same...it is the final and individual pronunciation of that same and one text which is the variant.
================================================== ===============
I have separated here to create a bit of an air of clarity.
Now...to approach one more major point which I have mentioned before in other posts. It is dealing with the scriptures and the revelations throughout time.
To say or accuse or to assume that one people's Book of revelation has been corrupted is something abominous to those who believe in it and hold it dear. And I myself have been guilty of that at times. I will admit. But...let me please clarify my reasons for doing so...and please do be patient with me on this. It is not out of vice for those following such books (as the Bible, or the Torah, or others)...but rather out of genuine concern and true belief in this concept. Please do not be offended...truly not meant in the spirit of offense.
You, jcecil...have mentioned your belief that the contradictions that may occur within the Bible are only of numerical value (something which the mistakes have occured in translation...that point I will give to you...that an extra zero could easily be added or missed out in translations)...or whatever less valuable reasonings for the contradictions. However, I will point out to you that I have found throughout the Bible...some more what you say...'meaty' contradictions. Let me point out in case...in various spots of the Bible...the same incident will be referred to, and in one verse it will be mentioned that God was the cause of that incident, yet in the other verse it is mentioned that Satan was the cause of that incident. Yet in another case, for instance, a name of a man has been mentioned as the cause of something...and in another spot God or Satan has been mentioned as cause for the same incident. Now...please tell me...how can these contradictions be explained away with the same measure? They are quite opposing in final meaning...and not relevant at all one to another. I realize that I have not been exact in giving you quotes and verse references...and I will mention them to you at a later date, inshaAllah...if you truly need them (I will be expecting a remark from you to this affirmation).
In dealing with the revelations...it is believed by muslims that all the 3 religions...Judasim, Christianity, and Islam, are not only one and the same (calling for mankind to worship God and God alone...a submission to the Will of God)...but as well they are divinely revealed. It is only logically, therefore, to follow and accept them in succession...as appropriate to the time of the ages. There was in ancient times an existence of Judasim...only after and when it was made evident that the people needed a written guidance for them from above...the Torah was revealed as that written guidance. When there had developed so much chaos on earth...and that original message had been messed up somehow...to the point where the original was no longer concievable...then Christianity was revealed...with the newer message of the Gospel revealed along with the confirmation of the previous scriptures. After a time...there developed a corruption in that religion and it's scriptures...and therefore designating the need for the newer (yet the same original) message to be revealed...and that is Islam with the Quran as it's Book of Guidance...this time with a guarantee within the scripture itself that this is the seal of revelations...with no more revelation to come after it.
Islam is truly very basic and self-explanatory...and very simple. It is imposing and enacting the teachings of all the previous scriptures and the prophets who brought those messages to their people.
You will notice that all the previous prophets were sent to only a section of mankind...their people amongst whom they occured...yet Islam is something for all of mankind of all ages...it is truly something universal.
Even in the bible...you can find evidences that Jesus was sent only to the Jews...not to the gentiles. There is a bit of racism in this.
There are many indications in the Bible...in the Gospel itself...which tell of Jesus reminding all that he was only a man...not God...and yet Christians today must refer and return to that point. Jesus worshipped...is that God worshipping another God? God worshipping Himself? God is not in need of worshipping...but it is mankind who is in need of this humbling act.
Jesus was a man...a great man...but a man all the same. Miracles surrounded him...his life...his very existence. But isn't life all one large miracle? Isn't this very existence that we all know one major miracle? Sure...it is all following the laws of nature...our original conception, then gestation, then birth, and then later our lives...but those laws of nature...who created it? It is all a major miracle...and something quite unfathomable when you delve into it to think deeply.
I apologize for going a bit off tangent here...but it seems truly that one thing only leads into another and another.
Please do think rationally about the points that I have raised. None of it is meant as an offense...but rather as a truth that I hope you can one day understand.
As for the other points in this discussion...I shall be addressing those later, inshaAllah.
Lulua.
LAST EDITED ON 10-12-01 AT 06:33 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Lulua.
Regarding your point about the seven variant readings, I except what you say about this occurring in Mohammed's life-time. I also admit that I do not know Arabic, so it is impossible for me to know the significance of these variations.
My main point is not whether or WHEN the variants arose, but only that there are variants.
Again, I do not know Arabic, but the web site I pointed to seems to indicate that there have been other variants as well throughout the history of Islam. And again, I do not know the significance of these varaints since I cannot read Arabic. I do see that there are variants in English translation of the Qur'an.
My ONLY point in bringing all this up is that I feel that some of the people pointing to variant readings of the Bible in English translation jump to the conclusion that this is proof of corruption. I am suggesting that variants in the Bible are similar in significance to the variants we find in the history of text transmission in the Qur'an.
True, since I do not read Arabic, I cannot know this with absolute certainty. However, since I do know Greek, I do know that the textual purity of the New Testament is unparralleled by other ancient Greek literature, and there is wider manuscript evidence of the purity of the Bible than any other Western literature to demonstrate that the essential meaning intended by the authors has been preserved over time.
>Now...to approach one more major point
>which I have mentioned before
>in other posts. It is
>dealing with the scriptures and
>the revelations throughout time.
>
>To say or accuse or to
>assume that one people's Book
>of revelation has been corrupted
>is something abominous to those
>who believe in it and
>hold it dear. And I
>myself have been guilty of
>that at times. I will
>admit. But...let me please clarify
>my reasons for doing so...and
>please do be patient with
>me on this. It is
>not out of vice for
>those following such books (as
>the Bible, or the Torah,
>or others)...but rather out of
>genuine concern and true belief
>in this concept. Please do
>not be offended...truly not meant
>in the spirit of offense.
>
I am not offended by anything you have written thus far. I am a little frustrated with assertions made about the Bible that are either over-stated, or indicate a misunderstanding. This is an acedemic question though, and nothing to be offended about.
>
>You, jcecil...have mentioned your belief that
>the contradictions that may occur
>within the Bible are only
>of numerical value (something which
>the mistakes have occured in
>translation...that point I will give
>to you...that an extra zero
>could easily be added or
>missed out in translations)...or whatever
>less valuable reasonings for the
>contradictions. However, I will point
>out to you that I
>have found throughout the Bible...some
>more what you say...'meaty' contradictions.
>Let me point out in
>case...in various spots of the
>Bible...the same incident will be
>referred to, and in one
>verse it will be mentioned
>that God was the cause
>of that incident, yet in
>the other verse it is
>mentioned that Satan was the
>cause of that incident. Yet
>in another case, for instance,
>a name of a man
>has been mentioned as the
>cause of something...and in another
>spot God or Satan has
>been mentioned as cause for
>the same incident. Now...please tell
>me...how can these contradictions be
>explained away with the same
>measure? They are quite opposing
>in final meaning...and not relevant
>at all one to another.
>I realize that I have
>not been exact in giving
>you quotes and verse references...and
>I will mention them to
>you at a later date,
>inshaAllah...if you truly need them
>(I will be expecting a
>remark from you to this
>affirmation).
>
Answers to some of these types of questions have been posted by myself, Firefly, Alimadiyesu, and JBJ. Indeed, I raised a similar question about a certain verse of the Qur'an under a post titled "Need Help Understanding". Christians believe that there is a sense in which we can say that God is in charge of all things, yet we believe in free will.
What I am about to write is ONLY an analogy, and as such, it is not a perfect argument for what I am about to say. Yet, I find it helpful.
Think of it as though God were a master chess player. A master chess player can anticipate all the possible moves his opponent will make. Then, based on this anticipation, he or she can make a move that will force his or her opponent to move in certain ways. Yet, the master chess player is NOT controlling the mind and the freedom of his or her opponent. Indeed, the master chess player might only be "surprised" if out of all the possible moves, his or her opponent chose an incredibly stupid move.
God is THE ultimate chess player. He is so infinitely above all creation in wisdom and knowledge that nobody could possibly surprise him with a winning move in a chess game. Yet, God is not controolling our mind and freedom. Rather, he is moving the pieces (the circumstances of our life and history) based on our freedom and decisions. Satan is also moving pieces on the chessboard of history.
Thus, there is a very real sense that God is controlling the game, yet Satan is chosing his own moves, and each human person is chosing his or her own moves. Yet, throuhout the game, God is "winning" -- anticipating every possible move, always making the best move based on what we do, and even making moves that gently guide us towards him.
Thus, God even allows us the freedom to sin, and can use our sins to his glory. The is no greater example of this than God's ability to turn the crucifixion into the central act of salvation!
>In dealing with the revelations...it is
>believed by muslims that all
>the 3 religions...Judasim, Christianity, and
>Islam, are not only one
>and the same (calling for
>mankind to worship God and
>God alone...a submission to the
>Will of God)...but as well
>they are divinely revealed. It
>is only logically, therefore, to
>follow and accept them in
>succession...as appropriate to the time
>of the ages. There was
>in ancient times an existence
>of Judasim...only after and when
>it was made evident that
>the people needed a written
>guidance for them from above...the
>Torah was revealed as that
>written guidance. When there had
>developed so much chaos on
>earth...and that original message had
>been messed up somehow...to the
>point where the original was
>no longer concievable...then Christianity was
>revealed...with the newer message of
>the Gospel revealed along with
>the confirmation of the previous
>scriptures. After a time...there developed
>a corruption in that religion
>and it's scriptures...and therefore designating
>the need for the newer
>(yet the same original) message
>to be revealed...and that is
>Islam with the Quran as
>it's Book of Guidance...this time
>with a guarantee within the
>scripture itself that this is
>the seal of revelations...with no
>more revelation to come after
>it.
>
I do not accept the logic that whatever came most recently is the most pure. Even if I did, Mormonism comes long after Islam. By your logic, I should become a Mormon and believe in many gods! Better yet, everyone visiting this site should join the religion of the new prophet, Anne Marie Habibi!
>Islam is truly very basic and
>self-explanatory...and very simple. It is
>imposing and enacting the teachings
>of all the previous scriptures
>and the prophets who brought
>those messages to their people.
>
What Christians do not agree with in this statement is that Islam does not incorporate the incarnation and salvation in Christ in its teaching. From a Christian perspective, if we were to see Judaism evolving into a higher religion of Christianity, than Islam is a regression backwards. Islam has more in common with Judaism than with Christianity in day to day practice and belief, though Christianity did develop from within Judaism in the first century.
>
>You will notice that all the
>previous prophets were sent to
>only a section of mankind...their
>people amongst whom they occured...yet
>Islam is something for all
>of mankind of all ages...it
>is truly something universal.
>
I may be wrong about this, but is it not Islamic belief that Isa was the first prophet to address his message to the world?
>Even in the bible...you can find
>evidences that Jesus was sent
>only to the Jews...not to
>the gentiles. There is a
>bit of racism in this.
>
Jesus did state that he was sent to the fallen house of Isreal at one time. However, in the same passage, he then turns to heal a Canaanite woman. He also healed the daughter of a Roman centurion. After the resurrection, the risen Christ commanded the apostles to go out to the whole world.
The charge of racism also is not fully supported by the Old Testament. The Psalms and Prophets see Isreal as a guide to the other nations.
In other words, there may have been an arrogance among the Jews about the purity of their religion, but they did not believe that others were not saved. At times, the prophets see Babylon and Ninevah as instruments of God to punish the Isrealites for their sins.
>
>There are many indications in the
>Bible...in the Gospel itself...which tell
>of Jesus reminding all that
>he was only a man...not
>God...and yet Christians today must
>refer and return to that
>point. Jesus worshipped...is that God
>worshipping another God? God worshipping
>Himself? God is not in
>need of worshipping...but it is
>mankind who is in need
>of this humbling act.
>
Again, Firefly, JBJ, myself and others have answered these objections. Jesus was FULLY human, yet FULLY God. The passages you refer to without quoting directly each need to be read in their proper context. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from reading these apparently contradictory passages within the context of the whole. Slowly a coherent message begins to emerge which is codified in Trinitarina theology.
>Jesus was a man...a great man...but
>a man all the same.
>Miracles surrounded him...his life...his very
>existence. But isn't life all
>one large miracle? Isn't this
>very existence that we all
>know one major miracle? Sure...it
>is all following the laws
>of nature...our original conception, then
>gestation, then birth, and then
>later our lives...but those laws
>of nature...who created it? It
>is all a major miracle...and
>something quite unfathomable when you
>delve into it to think
>deeply.
>
Yes -- life is all one big miracle. We have no argument about what you wrote here.
>I apologize for going a bit
>off tangent here...but it seems
>truly that one thing only
>leads into another and another.
>
>
>Please do think rationally about the
>points that I have raised.
>None of it is meant
>as an offense...but rather as
>a truth that I hope
>you can one day understand.
>
Again, I take no offense, but I do feel a bit of frustration. The frustration is two-fold. First, there is this tendency of Muslims to point to an apparent contradiction or an admission of variants and so forth in the Bible, and pretend that no such difficulties exist in Islam. Second, there is a tendency of Muslims to mistate Christian belief to make it sound irrational. If our beliefs are truly irrational, you should be able to point out our logical errors using our EXACT words. This latter tendency is especially visible in the arguments posted under "Who Invented the Trinity?" (which was originally posted by you).
Peace!
jcecil3
Greetings Hassananalmuslim!
I appreciate what you say about reading vereses of the Qur'an within the context of all other vereses related to the same topic. I also admire your own admissin that failing to do so will lead one to believe that the Qur'an has an apparent contradiction.
That's EXACTLY what we Christians say Muslims do to the New Testament!
There are NO contradictions in the Bible that cannot be cleared up by reading the verse in question in light of all other verses related to the same topic, and reading the verses in the sense intended by the authors (what we call the historical and literary context).
Less clear passages are clarified in passages that are more clear. Light can also be shed on a topic by reading a confusing Old Testament passage in light of the New Testament.
Verfication of the authenticity of a translation of the Bible can be obtained by comparing ancient manuscripts in the original Greek that were produced in different locations, or by comparing early translations in more than one language (Latin, Ethiopian, Aramaic, Syriac, etc...).
A short-cut in this type of study is to read the definitions of Church councils, or the writings of early Church fathers and saints (similar to using ahadith to aid your study of the Qur'an). There is not a single point of Christian doctrine that rests entirely on a single verse of Scripture. Rather, each doctrine arises from a careful study of several passages or clear Biblical principles within the context of the entire canon of Biblical Scripture.
There are useful commentaries and Bible encyclopedias available as well, both in book form, and on the web.
The end result is that I have yet to run across a question about the Bible that I could not resolve rationally with a little research and prayer.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Salaam Hassanalmuslim,
You're exactly right that all of the Qur'an should be examined before making an interpretation, that's exactly why I talked about the verses that some people say point to the Books being changed. I've read the whole Qur'an, and done a special study on every ayah that uses "Book," "Torah," "Injil," "Scripture," "Jews," and "Christians" and what I've found is what I've written about. Perhaps I'll post the complete listing of these ayat so they can be seen.
When I started studying Islam, this conclusion was my own, but as I kept reading I found that this interpretation was really started a long time ago. Ibn Abbas is one scholar who took this opinion and there were quite a few others until around 1000 AD when the tide changed.
If you want to show ayat that make the interpretation different, then please do so. Got to go, thanks.
JBJ
Mardhiah
11-12-2001, 05:20
Hello JBJ,
What Hassanilmuslim said is pretty clear.Your basic mistake is that you think Allah has told mankind to believe today existing remains of the prvious books.Wrong.After the descent of Quran, non other books should be accepted.I stress it again Torah was for the followers of Moses a.s and Bible was for the followers of Jesus a.s.The Quran itself is enough and complete for this last era.It does not have to go through 'new testament' to make it clear.And its original language is still as Arabic.
I think to argue about contradictions in the Bible is not a good idea.The Quran says it was being changed and changes could be agree upon people causing no severe variants.And if you ask when was the changes made, certainly nobody can answer that.The main thing that differs between Islam and Christian is the faith.First, Christians do not believe Muhammad s.a.w as a prophet and messenger.Then saying Allah entered a woman's womb is such an insult! Of course he can do anything but He will not be like His creations.A presiden will be seen sweeping the street even he is capable of doing it.
So what I was trying to say here is that the faith should be an argumentative topic not the Books.
My native language is Malay.I know English because it is the national language here.My parents taught me how to read the Quran since I was in kindergarten.Later I was sent to a full-time Islamic school at 7 where I learnt Islamic studies, Arabic and academic subjects.And I am still learning there right now.
Mardhiah Mansor
LAST EDITED ON 13-12-01 AT 02:58 AM (GMT)[p]Hi Mardhiah,
Good to hear from you again. You said
What Hassanilmuslim said is pretty clear.Your basic mistake is that you think Allah has told mankind to believe today existing remains of the prvious books.
I'm not sure I agree. Well, yes, Hassanalmuslim was clear, I mean that I think Allah has told all mankind to believe in all the Books. The Qur'an says in 2.136
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them.
The Torah was sent by Allah to Moses, and it was sent to all the Jews after him, even until today. I can't stress enough that you should keep studying what we've written until we find an answer to explain why it looks like the Qur'an means the Torah wasn't changed or discover that they really weren't changed.
After the descent of Quran, no other books should be accepted.I stress it again Torah was for the followers of Moses a.s and Bible was for the followers of Jesus a.s.
The Gospel (which is part of the Bible) says that Jesus was for all people. The Torah says that the messiah, who the Qur'an says is Jesus, will be a blessing for all nations, not only Christians but Muslims too.
The Quran itself is enough and complete for this last era.It does not have to go through 'new testament' to make it clear.And its original language is still as Arabic.
I never said the Qur'an wasn't enough, it doesn't need to go through the New Testament, and yes it is still in Arabic. The New Testament is made of two parts, the Gospel and letters from Jesus' companions.
Parts of the Qur'an have been abrogated, right? But you still read those parts, they aren't taken out of the Qur'an! It's the same way with the Torah and Gospel. Even if they've been abrogated, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be read. They still say a lot about Allah, and guidance, and peace, and lots of things that don't change when new rules are given. The Zabur has many beautiful passages. For example, here's one of my friend's favorite suras from it:
I lift up my eyes to the hills
- where does my help come from?
My help comes from the Lord,
- the Maker of heaven and earth.
He will not let your foot slip
- he who watches over you will not slumber;
Indeed, he who watches over Israel
- will neither slumber nor sleep.
The Lord watches over you
- the Lord is your shade at your right hand;
The sun will not harm you by day,
- nor the moon by night.
The Lord will keep you from all harm
- he will watch over your life;
The Lord will watch over your coming and going
- both now and forevermore.
There's nothing wrong with reading from Books like these.
I think to argue about contradictions in the Bible is not a good idea.
Good idea, I say the same for contradictions in the Qur'an.
The Quran says it was being changed
Where does it say this though?
changes could be agree upon people causing no severe variants.
Tell me, would Muslims change the Qur'an? Then why would Jews, who love their Book just as much change theirs? And to have no variants, every single Jew would have to agree, millions of them, otherwise the one or two that didn't agree would keep copies of the unchanged Book. The same for Christians, we would never want to change our Book, we love it too much to let anyone destory Allah's meaning in it.
And if you ask when was the changes made, certainly nobody can answer that.
Can Allah answer that? If it happened, why would he keep it a secret to so many? No, Allah is al-Hadi.
Christians do not believe Muhammad s.a.w as a prophet and messenger.
I do. I believe he was a great man, truthful and upright, a defender of the poor and of women. He searched for the one true God even after being raised in a family who worshipped idols. He was the greatest fighter against pagans and an inspiration to be righteous.
Then saying Allah entered a woman's womb is such an insult! Of course he can do anything but He will not be like His creations.
If you had a daughter who was playing outside, and while running around she tripped in some mud and hit her nose hard coming down, wouldn't you want to comfort her? Even though she's dirty, wouldn't you still hug her to help her pain? That's what Jesus was like.
Jesus was like a father who loved his children so much that he was even willing to get dirty to be close to them. Yes the world is sinful, yes it's dirty, but Jesus' love was greater. Imagine how great the evil is in the world; Allah's love is even greater. By being with us, Allah didn't show humiliation, his great care for us.
So what I was trying to say here is that the faith should be an argumentative topic not the Books.
But the faith is the Books, and that's my entire point. The Qur'an says the Torah was sent by Allah and to all Jews, that is part of faith.
Salaam and God bless,
JBJ
Hi Lulua,
The Qur'an says that Jesus was only for the Jews. Jesus lived in Israel, so of course most of the people he talked to were Jews. At one time he left into non-Jewish territory where he healed a man from possession by jinn.
Jesus' mission during his life wasn't to gather a religous following. It was to teach the lost, to heal the sick, to train his companions, and finally his rescue mankind from sin and show God's glory over it. Christianity really started spreading after he left.
He also made statements showing his message was for everyone and the world:
"Everyone who looks to the Son and believe in Him shall have eternal life."
"I am the light of the world"
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 11-12-01 AT 02:29 PM (GMT)[p]Dear JBJ:
I draw your attention, and everyone else in this thread to response I've just given you in "WHO GOD or ALLAH (SWT) REALLY IS":
http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID4/92.html#12
The crux of the matter is the whole concept of 'trinity'. As a child, in Mozambique, I learnt at my Catholic college from Father Caraminho, our teacher of "Moral & Religion", that 'trinity' was a "divine mystery", something that could not be explained, that had to be accepted as a dogma. 'Trinity' in fact is a concept that existed in Hinduism, the religion of my Hindu forefathers, and can be traced to at least 300 B.C.
As a Muslim when one enters a Church, one is faced immediately with the reality of Christianity. There are niches all over, with images and statues of Jesus, Mary and Christian saints. The worship and devotion of these figures, is foreign to a Muslim who can never accept associating anyone to Allah (God).
"Say: 'O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah(God); that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords other than Allah.' But if they turn away, say: 'Bear you witness that we have surrendered unto Allah (We are Muslims).'" (The Holy Qur'an 3:6)
Tayeb
Dear JBJ:
If your actual scriptures are true for Muslims, Jesus could have never said what you claim he said:
"Everyone who looks to the Son and believe in Him shall have eternal life."
"I am the light of the world"
You are using capital letter in 'son' and 'him' implying that he's a 'god'. This concept is not only unacceptable to Muslims, but also to Jews whose scriptures the Christians use.
Tayeb
Greetings Tayeb,
Saint Augustine of Hippo (in North Africa) wrote a commentary in the fourth century regarding a phrase of Exodus that says that Moses knew all the wisdom of Egypt. He stated that the very phrase implied that pagan Egypt had wisdom!
Augustine went on to show that there were many similarities between ancient pagan religions and Christinianity as well as Judaism.
From Augustine's point of view, this demonstrated two important points. First, it demonstrated that there is truly one God. Deep in the consciousness of humanity, nobody ever really forgot this, and all religious expereince tends towards this truth. Second, Augustine believed that any similarity between another religion and Christianity demonstrated that God was preparing that people to accept Christ, just as the Old Testament was preparation for the coming of the Messiah to the Jews!
Contemporary Bible scholars find that many passages of the Old Testament convey similar religious moral principles to ancient near east texts such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and so forth. But simply to say that two religions have things in common does not mean that either is false.
As an outsider to Islam, I find it hard to believe that Mohammed was not influenced to pray five times per day by the example of Christian monks. But even if he wasn't, there are many references in the Qur'an to Jewish prophets and Arabic legends. Does that automatically mean the Qur'an is false? No. It means nothing more than that there is a similarity.
So, I would agree that Hinduism has some parralels to Christianity. But that does not mean that Hinduism and Christianity are identical.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 11-12-01 AT 05:23 PM (GMT)[p]Dear 'jcecil3':
The association of other figures to Allah (God) is what differentiates us most. I think you missed the point. It has nothing to do with rites, or methods of prayer, but the concept of Allah (God). We, Muslims, believe that Christianity has changed from Jesus' original Message, and 'divinised' Jesus making him part of Allah. Many Muslims and even Christians recognise that the concept of 'trinity' is foreign to Old Testment and belief of Jews.
The belief in 'trinity' is new in Christianity as it emantes from 3rd century, and is in fact a compromise move to make Christianity acceptable and easy to the Pagans. Tertullian (155-220) was the first Christian to coin the word "trinity" when he brought up the theory that the "son" and "the spirit" participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the "father".
"O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was [no more or less than] a messenger of Allah, and His word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from Him: so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not "Three": desist!, it is better for you, for Allah is one God, Glory be to Him, Far exalted is He above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs." The Holy Qur'an 4:171
"And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken unto Himself a son, and Who has no partner in the Sovereignty, nor has He any ally through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence."
The Holy Qur'an 17:111.
"Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him; else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege. Knower of the invisible and the visible! and exalted be He over all that they ascribe as partners (unto Him)!" Holy Qur'an 23:91-92.
Tayeb
hassanalmuslim
11-12-2001, 18:48
Salaam Tayeb.
Indeed, there are verses in the bible which can be interpreted pro-trinitarian and anti-trinitarian. There are verses which make the concept of God very clear ( pure monotheism) and there are others (fabricated or changed ones) which try to create an image of a god consisting of three elements. In any way, the bible gives us no clear and doubtless concept about WHO IS GOD. When someone wants to know who is God and starts to read the bible, he must apply the principle which i repeatedly mention, that is, studying all topic-related verses collectively in order to get the full image. But in case of the bible he will not be able to get a clear result. There are verses which state that God is only ONE, and there are verses which create an image of a god of three persons.
The Quran is very clear on that subject, as I hpe to have shown in my referring posting, because it makes the truth clear one time for all times.
By theway, I find it kind of funny that the two christians here are asking for words like "DNA" or "morula" in the Quran instead of the definitions ("assemble", "blood clot"), while the word trinity, the cornerstone of their belief, isn´t even mentioned in their "holy" scripture, the bible!
Wasalaam
Hassanalmuslim,
Yes there are verse in the Bible that can be intrepreted for and against the trinity, but if look at the whole of them, the trinity is the only interpretation that explains all of them.
I think the idea of God very clear in the Bible. Since Adam and Eve when he walked with them in the garden until Christ, God was active with mankind. He constantly spoke to people and intervened, healed and saved, inspired and taught. He had a passion for humanity. Very clear.
No, the Bible doesn't give the full explanation of God and Jesus. But why should it? Who's to say what God should have in his revelation? The Qur'an is clear, the Bible isn't. These are just two facts, neither implies truth or falsehood on either.
The cornerstone of the Christian belief isn't the trinity at all. The foundation of Islam is the unity of God, in Christianity it is the salvation through Jesus. That is made very clear. The trinity is just kind of an extra, something for further study. There is no rejection of Christians who don't understand the trinity, or understand it differently, it is only when beliefs go directly against the Bible. It shouldn't be unusual at all that "trinity" isn't in the Bible, it's not so important.
But you've drawn an unwarranted comparison. This isn't the same as in the other thread at all. There are verse in the Bible that give no other conclusion but the trinity. But words here and there ambigous as "assemble" or "blood clot" can be interpreted several different ways, including ways having nothing to do with miraculous revelation. I'm forward to your response to my response in the other thread.
But aren't we getting way off topic in this thread? The question here is whether the Qur'an confirms the Torah and Gospel, which has yet to be shown.
God Bless!
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 11-12-01 AT 09:15 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings!
I have to disagree with you JBJ. The early Church spent far more time discussing the Trinity than salvation in Jesus. Furthermore, almost every theological "heresy" starts with a misconception of God (i.e. -- Arianism, Modalism, Marconianism, Manichiism, Sebbelianism, Docetism, Gnosticism, etc....)
It's not that salvation was not important. The early controversies with the "Judaizers" and "Pelegianism" were based on issues of salvation. However, the most clear articulations of soteriology (salvation theology) come at the time of the Protestant Reformation. So we spent almost 1,000 years clarifying the Trinity ever deeper before finally getting around to clarifying the salvation process. There are some distinctions and differences in regards to soteriology between Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox that linger to this day. To an outsider (i.e. -- Muslim), we ALL salvation is by grace alone, but insiders know that an Evangelical Protestant and a Roman Catholic in the same room will argue vigourously over whether works have merit.
But back to my point. My point is that the Trinity is CENTRAL to Christian faith, though most Christians admit that they have a hard time articulating their belief. Maybe they don't even spend a lot of conscious time thinking about it -- but it influences everything they believe about Christ! The doctrine of the Trinity is central because it answers the question "Who do you say that I am?" in regards to Christ. We cannot answer questions about salvation in Christ until we first establish who he is.
For some people, it may be easier to work from an experience of salvation to answer this question -- but the Trinity is still the central dogma upon which everything else hangs. And the Trinity is directly related to the Resurrection event, which is the cornerstone historical event giving rise to the idea of Trinity.
Aside from its relation to salvation theology, the doctrine of the Trinity is a starting point for moral theology (God is relational, and we image God in relationship). It is a starting point for mystical theology. It is a starting point for talking about God as "personal". It is a starting point for talking about the nature of revelation. Indeed, all our theology can be related back to the Trinity in some way. Not only theology is influenced by our belief in the Trinity, but philosophy as well. Our very discussions in philosophy and the meaning of terms "person" and "being" evolved from Trinitarian debates.
Tayeb: Regarding the statement about wanting DNA in the Qur'an, I never specifically said this. What I said is that I am interested in hearing how seventh or eighth century Muslims interpreted the passages you references. If THEY interpreted it as embryology, that might be impressive. If they did not, I believe that your reading is "anachronistic". In regards to the Trinity possibly being an anachronistic reading of the New testament, while Tertullian was the first to use the word "Trinity", it is clear that Ignatius of Antioch (c.a. about 100-110) and the Didache (first century Syrian liturgical prayers) were refering to Trinitarian concepts. Thus, I am stating that first and second century Christians can be shown to have believed in the Trinity based on apostolic witness and/or New testament exegesis. Plus, there about 700 verses of the New Testament that affirm the planks of Trinitarian dogma. It did not take till the third century for this belief to arise.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 11-12-01 AT 09:29 PM (GMT)[p]Hi Jcecil,
I didn't mean that the trinity isn't important, I meant its comprehension isn't critical to salvation. The trinity does tell us who God is, and without there could obviously be no salvation for salvation comes from God. I should have said our comprehension of the trinity isn't the basis of Christianity.
But it doesn't much matter the exact words we use, it's the words of God that matter, which is what we should be discussing. And so for Muslims, I yet again come to the problem, what "Torah" does the Qur'an speak of in regards to modern Jews except the Word of God?
JBJ
Dear jcecil3 and JBJ:
I agree with you jcecil3 that belief in trinity is fundamental for Christians, and also that differs Muslims from Christians. I want to draw the attention of both of you to other thread where I have posted the source of fundamentals of this belief when "trinity" was explained:
http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID4/92.html#16
As I have said already we agree to disagree, and the matter of "trinity" is irreconcilable with Muslims and Muslim belief that Jesus was a Prophet of Allah (God) and he's or was not part of unity of God.
Also jcecil3 you have confused me on "statement about wanting DNA in the Qur'an" as I wasn't the one who posted the message.
Tayeb
hassanalmuslim
12-12-2001, 17:08
Salaam and Peace to you and all readers.
Let me just tell some words concerning your posting. You said: “Yes there are verse in the Bible that can be intrepreted for and against the trinity, but if look at the whole of them, the trinity is the only interpretation that explains all of them.”
and: “I think the idea of God very clear in the Bible”
First I like to congratulate for admitting that there are verses which can be interpreted pro- and others which can be intepreted contra-trinititarian. Moreover I am happy that you say “I THINK the ides of God is very clear in the bible.” Because I don’t think so. On the contrary, by MOST of the biblical verses I strongly get the impression that they teach pure monotheism, that is “TAUHID”. Let me just mention few:
The most popular one:
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
of course christians claim that ONE (echad) here stands for trinity. However, I don’t see anything trinitarian here. Moreover, NO OTHER GENERATION BEFORE WAS TAUGHT THE TRINITY! The jews did never know the trinity and they still won’t accept it. Should God not have mentioned that He is existing in three persons in earlier revelations? The jews are believing in ONE God, not in trinity. The jews knew the above cited verse before the christians. Why did they never interpret it in a trinitarian way. Why did they NEVER knew about trinity?
There are lots of similar verses where it is emphasized that God is Just ONE.
Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Again, we clearly get the impression that God is only one, not three in one, because it is emphasized that God is equal to NO ONE. In fact, throughout the hole b.o. Isa I CAN`T find one verse supporting trinity, rather in the contrary. God is always called the “Holy ONE”.
Just some other examples of verses which give me the impression of ONE God, not three in one are:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
Exod 8:10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.
Deut 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
Deut 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
There are much more verses like these. But I think the above cited verses should suffice to show that I am not thinking of trinity after having read them, in the contrary I strongly get the feeling that God is really ONE.
Now, of course, if we have already accepted the trinity, we understand these verses in another way. We think that always when ONE is mentioned “THREE IN ONE” is meant. However, I try to make clear that someone who reads the bible for the first time, with an open mind, never heard of trinity, will get the impression I described.
Well, the bible is also full of verses which (in my opinion) CLEARLY contradict the trinity-belief. Let me just cite few I remember:
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Here Jesus (a.s.) clearly differentiates between himself and God. HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS VERSE IN THE “LIGHT” OF TRINITY, JBJ and jcecil3?
A similar verse, where Jesus (a.s.) clearly makes a difference between himself ,as a human and God, as the Almighty is:
John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
Again, how is this verse compatible with trinity?
As I have mentioned, there are indeed verses which can be interpreted as supporting the trinity. However, they are not clear. They could also be interpreted anti-trinitarian. What I want to say is that the bible in general is NOT clear about WHO IS GOD. The bible can be interpreted in both ways. It just depends on your prejudices. If you believe in trinity, you can interpret the bible according to your belief. If you don’t believe in trinity (which is what many christians do) you can interpret the bible according to your belief. BUT IF YOU HAVE NO PREJUDICES AT ALL (trinity or pure monotheism) AND READ THE BIBLE, YOU WON’T GET THE IMPRESSION THAT GOD IS THREE IN ONE! (in my opinion).
You say: “No, the Bible doesn't give the full explanation of God and Jesus. But why should it? Who's to say what God should have in his revelation? The Qur'an is clear, the Bible isn't.”
Again, I congratulate you for admitting that the bible is not clear and that the QURAN IS VERY CLEAR. I tell you, why “God should have in His revelation” the definition of the pure belief (tauhid). Because this is the primary and most important question of ALL. From it all depends. Your fate after death depends on your BELIEF!
And this is why ALLAH (SWT) Has made so clear WHO HE IS in Al-Qur’an. How can you believe in the trinity after admitting that “the bible doesn't give the full explanation of God and Jesus”? Don’t you feel the danger you are within (that is, believing in something without being 100% sure)?
The trinity is indeed the cornerstone of chrisitianity. The concept of salvation is based upon it.
Salaam
LAST EDITED ON 18-12-01 AT 06:16 PM (GMT)[p]Hello Hassanalmuslim,
This has been discussed many times before, so I won't go in depth on it. You can see "Who Invented the Trinity" to see more information.
No the Jews don't believe in the trinity, but there are still parts of it taught in their scripture. For example, Psalm 110, a psalm attributed by Jews about the messiah, says, "My LORD (God) said to my Lord (master)." Who can the second Lord be but God? Isaiah 9 describes the messiah as "Father or eternity" and "Almighty God." This, together with verses about monotheism, can't be understood except through the trinity.
Isaiah 40.25 is saying there is one God, and no one is God but God. But the trinity says Jesus is God, so there's no trouble. If the trinity said Jesus was another god, then there would be, but it doesn't say this.
Your other verses also mean that God is one, just like you said. The trinity doesn't deny this. The trinity says God IS one God, and three persons. The verses don't say there is one person, so there's no problem. (By the way, these verses are all part of the Christian Bible, I felt like you were a little confused on that issue.)
For Luke 18:19, look at the context. A Jew who has been hostile to Jesus teachings is calling him good, probably trying to lull into a false sense of security. But Jesus catches on and says only God is good. The obvious indication is that if the ruler speaking to him called him good, this Jew is therefore calling him God. Jesus is essentiatially saying "Be careful of your own words, and don't call me God if you don't believe I am." Notice he never says he isn't good, he says only God is good. But by being part of God, Jesus is also good. So only God is good, and all that is in him is good, including Jesus.
John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
Jesus and the Father have different roles, one does certain actions, the other does other actions. Some actions are similar, some are the same, and others aren't. In this case, Jesus says that seeking glory isn't part of his role, but implies it is part of the Father's role.
The Bible, as a whole, can definitely not be interpreted using anything but the trinity. For example, John 1.1 says very clearly that Jesus is God. How can you interpret this except throught the trinity. If you can, I'd be very interested in hearing. There are more verses like that, but that's the most well known, and suffices for now. As one author said, "Reading the New Testament without seeing Jesus is God is like not seeing the sky is blue." You seem to imply that you have read the Bible, or at least the New Testament. But by your remarks, I would suggest you read it a little more open minded without trying to destroy beliefs you don't fully understand.
You say the hereafter depends on your belief, and that's right. But belief, not understanding. For a Christian to believe in the Bible, even without understanding everything in it, that is enough. God is not prejudice to those with understanding. According to the Bible he loves regardless of skill in actions or mind. There are many Christians with misunderstandings about the trinity, but that doesn't mean they'll be damned.
Thought the Bible doesn't explain the trinity directly, it gives enough information that only interpretation is valid, the trinity. Anything else will contradict the Bible somewhere. The trinity is a offshoot of systematic theology, that is, taking the Bible only and making conclusions. No prejudice neccessary. I've gone through, as thousands have before me, I don't feel the slightest hint of danger.
But the most important thing isn't any of this, it's that your own Book, which you say is clear, clearly approves of my Books, the Torah, the Zabur, and the Gospel. There is truth in these Books as well, I think you should put more into understanding them. To understand tauhid, you must understand what these Books say about it as well.
I admire you study of the Bible and the Qur'an, there is much to be learned in each. Keep on, and God bless.
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 18-12-01 AT 03:48 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Tayeb!
First, I apologize that I confused Hassanalmuslim's post immediately prior. This was the statement about DNA.
Now regarding Tertullian and the Trinity arising in the third century: I agree that Tertullian is the first to use the word "Trinity". However, the basic premises that are summarized at Nicea and subsequent councils come directly from New Testament exegesis.
Elsewhere, you posted the Athanasian creed verbatem on another thread (at least I think it was you).
I would maintain that the letters of Igantius of Antioch written around 110 refers to the Trinitarian formula of "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", as well as making theological statements that indicate Ignatius held Trinitarian belief as defined by Athanasias. In other words, there is nothing in Ignatius that does not strongly imply the same statements that inform Athanasias, and certainly no contradiction.
Likewise, we find Trinitarian language in the Didache (likely a first century document). We also find it in Papias, then Ireneas, Cyprian of Carthage, even Origen, and so forth. We even find strong Trinitarian language in the non-canonical gospels such as the Proto-Evengelium of James.
In other words, there is more than ample evidence that the statement that Trinitarian belief did not exist prior to the use of the term in third century is completely false and indefensible.
A couple of weeks ago, I would have pointed you to the following site, but it appears to be moving. Hopefully this link will be working soon:
http://www.catholicanswers.org
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Hello, jcecil.
I know that you do not know Arabic...at least not well enough to understand about the 7 variants of recitation of the Quran. That was my reason for pointing it out to you what it is. To make myself even more clear, let it be known that I am not saying any of this out of an air of assumption or pride, but rather with an air pertaining to an attempt to clear up any misconeption or misunderstanding of this particular matter.
You have complained that muslims speak of the errors or contradictions of the Bible, and yet refuse to accept that there is any variation of the Quran...and I can understand completely from where you are coming with that complaint.
Alhamdulillah, I am speaking myself (as well as many other muslims)...from the vantage point of being able to understand quite fully the Bible and the Quran (for I have studied extensively both...while following that religion)...as well as having a good capacity of understanding for the English and Arabic languages.
As for the Bible...there are many textual as well as comprehensive contradictions...which altho you and others here at these forums and at other sites have attempted to explain...yet have fallen short with comprehensible excuses. The fact remains that there are those obvious and basic contradictions...and no amount of explanation of the reasons for them can help to dismiss their existence. As well...there is a well-known and self-admitted human hand in the ability and occurance of changing of the Bible from time to time...from the Christians themselves.
As for the Quran...the variants you have mentioned are variants not in text, nor in comprehensive meaning...but rather in the tongue or dialect of the spoken word. The countries and regions of the world which naturally speak Arabic are widely different and spacious, and have developed into various slangs typical to those regions. The language is one, yet the region from which a person comes makes the difference in the slang of the tongue of the pronunciation. As I have explained before, this is similar to the difference between British English and American English, say...or perhaps even the difference within those very continents of their pronunciation in the varrying areas. This is the extent to which the variants of the permissable readings of the Quran goes. There is nothing different in the textual version, nor the meanings...but rather in the pronunciation itself. Period. All muslims will admit to this...and all muslims know of this definition of the variations. In fact, it is a major study of islamic studies, the study of the variants of the readings. No muslim scholar can be called a scholar without having a deep and complete knowledge of all seven of those variants.
Hope that this serves to clear up slightly about this.
Lulua.
Greetings Lulua!
I just read this post of yours now, so I am not sure how long you have it up.
At any rate, regarding differences in dialect, such as the difference between America and British English, I am somewhat confused.
In Britain, a boot can be the trunk of a car, while in America, it is always apparel worn on the feet. Even within the United States, there are differences in the meaning of words as you cross geographic regions or race. There are white people in America who cannot understand Black American English as it is spoken in Harlem. Within the city of London, many people have trouble understanding the cockney dialect.
Again, I do not know Arabic, but differences in dialect are not small in Spanish or Latin -- a couple of other languages I know. From what I've read so far, Muslims often engaged in fights about these dialectic readings of the Qur'an. They seem more significant than you make them out to be.
It seems to me that variants in dialect can be pretty significant.
Peace!
jcecil3
Dear jcecil3:
You're again wrong. Early writing of Holy Qur'an has nothing to do with dialects. Qur'an is preserved in its prestine format also through memorisation. There were thousand of Muslims then and millions now who know the Holy Qur'an by heart. The Holy Qur'an was not only preserved in writing but by memorisation. If you care to research more you'll find that.
Now coming back to the discussion we are having in this thread, I'm coming to conclusion that you and JBJ are participating in this discussion board not to learn about Islam, or compare Islam to other religions, namely your own religion, but to prove somehow your own point of views on Islam. Let me state that we will not allow this type of discussion and embark into futile debate. If you want to learn about Islam, or compare it to oter religions fine, if you are to bring here your views of Islam to prove somehow that Islam isn't what Muslims say it is, we won't allow.
I am going to watch over this Forum from now on, and help our Moderator Sr Mardhiah in ensuring that you don't misuse this Forum.
This thread has grown too much and I'll lock after I've given you the right to respond to this post.
Tayeb
Dear jecil3:
Why didn't Jesus (pbuh) state clearly the doctrinie of trinity if this was to become so fundamental to Christian belief? You've stated rightly so that trinity was formulated later.
No, I didn't say that trinitarian belief did not exist prior to the use of the term in third century. In fact I have proved that it existed in pagan beliefs, as I have shown you in Hinduism, the religion of my forefathers.
Tayeb
LAST EDITED ON 19-12-01 AT 05:28 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Tayeb!
You ask an excellent question, and one that Christians do not all answer the same way. I will attempt to briefly summarize the main positions. Keep in mind that I am oversimplifying the arguments somewhat.
1) There is the position that Christ did reveal the Trinity without using the word after the resurrection. Biblical warrent for this is found in Matthew's great commission, where the risen Christ commands the apostles to go forth and baptise "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Believers in this position maintain that an oral tradition was passed through the apostles that guided the early Church to a clear understanding of the Trinity prior to use of the actual term.
2) More liberal theologians argue that when the divine Logos became human, he had no complete human knowledge of his own divinity. The argument is based on counciliar decrees that Jesus has both a human and a divine will, and the gospels are clear that Jesus, in his humanity, did not claim omniscience. In our own human experience, we all know that we have unconscious, preconscious, and non-verbal knowledge. Thus, proponents of this position maintain that Jesus was not completely verbally aware that he was God in his human consciousness. In this view, the recognition of the divinity of Christ is the faith of the apostles as they reflected on the meaning of Jesus' person and works in their own life. In this view, the apostles themselves developed the foundations for Trinitarian belief after the resurrection event over the course of their life-time. Thus, we see a progression in the New Testament from a focus on Jesus' humanity in the earlier writings, to a focus on his divinity in the later writings. All the writings indicate both a human and divine nature, but there does seem to be a development and clarification of the thought from a purely literary perspective. In this view, there is an admission that the revelation of the Trinity is said to be revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit AFTER Jesus' time on earth, with only tangential reference to his actual historical words. Proponents of this view emphasise that our faith is the faith of the apostles, and that revelation occurs through the operation of Holy Spirit in the Church. Proponents of this view can accept that Peter may not have fully understood the divinity of Christ until close to his death. In this view, the Bible is foundation for later doctrinal developments since it is the earliest documentation of the tradition. Tradition becomes clarified in the crucible of controversy. Yet, the living and developing tradition in history is also either a source of revelation, or a clarification of scripture.
3) Another view that I personally find hard to justify is that Jesus revealed the Trinity to the apostles in its fullness before the crucifixion and resurrection events. This view holds that the Trinitarian doctrine was passed on orally in its fullness and simply wasn't written down until Tertullian. In this view, Christ verbally knew his divinity from the moment of birth. Like I say, there is almost no evidence for this view in either the Bible, or external sources. Notice that I said "almost no evidence". Proponents of this view will quote the "I Am" sayings of Jesus and try to build the case on this meager evidence. It is important to note that in the original Greek, there two additional "I Am" sayings not found in English. These are in Mark and Matthew when Jesus walks on the water. It is usually translated as "Fear not, it is I". In the Greek, it says, "Fera not, I AM". This view also emphasises that Jesus acts divine by forgiving sins, raising the dead and so forth. This view also maintains that Jesus' words are recorded unaltered and pure in the gospels.
I personally hold a view closer to the second view I have described. Thus, I am unphased by Islamic assertions of editing in the Bible, since I see this as the gradual unfolding of revelation under the Holy Spirit. What is remarkable, or miraculous, to me is that so many different authors writing in different locations to different communities were simultaneously coming to the same conclusions about Jesus. These were people who knew him personally, or knew his apostles. These assertions of divinity arose so quickly in the early church that it is difficult to ascribe it to any normal human myth making. Furthermore, it is very odd that such conclusions would be reached about one who was legally executed by the state and labeled a blasphemer by religious authority. Thus, there is something in the resurrection event narratives that is an attempt to describe a mind-blowing experience that was shared by the members of the early church. I believe that I share this experience in my personal relationship with Christ. This simultaneously arising of the early traditions of Jesus' divinity is evidence of the hand of God in this doctrinal development. Indeed, with my view of revelation, the Islamic assertion of a single person receiving the words of God through dication makes absolutely no sense. That's not how I believe revelation happens.
There is external proof that the early church believed in the divinity of Christ before the end of the first century. We find this proof in the secular writings of Tacitus and Josephus, and there are some other secular references I cannot remember off the top of my head. At any rate, the doctrine of the Trinity in my mind is a clarification of how Jesus can be human and divine at the same time. Thus, if we admit that the earliest followers of Jesus believed him divine, we are acknowledging a foundation for the Trinity, even if admit that the doctrine underwent some further development.
I hope this answers your question. If other Christians have a different view, feel free to add to what I have said.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Dear jcecil3:
As I have said in another posting we agree to differ as you have your way as a Christian and we have our way as Muslims. There can never be a reconciliation on Jesus (pbuh) as for us he was a Prophet of Allah (God) and could not be god, nor trinity something that can be accepted by Muslims, who don't associate anyone to Allah (God).
But I cannot accept your argument based on earlier writers as Josephus. Many researchers think that the words don't add up, and that these are interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ. It is worth noting that in "The Jewish War", Josephus' earlier work, written under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in the Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion on Josephus' text see the following link:
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
When I was younger, my teacher of "Religion & Moral", Father Caraminho, at the Catholic school in Mozambique, where I did my secondary school education, wasn't very satisfied in quoting Josephus as he thought that the original has been tampered. He didn't believe that Josephus being a Jew would write such words.
sure
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.