View Full Version : Some Forgotten Sayings of Jesus
Anyone can call God "Father" according to the Bible
"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17 RSV 1952) Jesus, at the end of his mission, made it clear that God is not only his father, but father of all, and God of all, and even his own God whom he worshipped throughout his earthly career.
We cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611) Here the writer is Paul and he made it clear that anyone can address God as "Father." Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
". . . Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
According to Matthew, Jesus taught everyone to call God 'Father'. He said to them: "This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .' " (Matthew 6:9 NIV)
Jesus made it clear that he is not God
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
A man had ran up and knelt before Jesus and called him "Good Teacher." Jesus used the opportunity to make it clear to people that they must not praise him more than a human being deserves to be praised.
Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one
"I can do nothing of my own authority" (John 5:30)
"I do as the Father has commanded me." (John 14:31 RSV)
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone.
"The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority." (John 14:10 RSV) "I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me." (John 8:28 RSV) God has full authority, and full knowledge. He cannot be taught, but He teaches.
Jesus is not Equal to "The Father"
"The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 RSV)
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe--Jesus or the people?
Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)
Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
God raised him up. (Acts 2:24)
Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says.
Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one
"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:32)
Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God's will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus's wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God's will to let the crucifixion take place. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit
He [Jesus] was hungry. And on seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it , he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. (Mark 11 12-13)
When he saw that the tree had leaves, he thought that he might find fruit on it. But when he came up close to the tree he realised there were no fruits. After all, it was not even fig season.
Jesus referred to as Servant of God
"Behold my servant whom I have chosen." (Matthew 12:18 In this passage God calls Jesus His servant)
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus. (Acts 3:13)
For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus. . . (Acts 4:27)
Everyone, except for God, are God's servants. Jesus, too, is God's servant.
Who was real Worker of Miracles?
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:22 KJV)
People say that since Jesus worked many miracles, he must be God. But here we see that God did the miracles; Jesus was the instrument God used to accomplish His work. Jesus was a man whom God approved of. This means he was a righteous man.
Jesus cannot guarantee positions
"To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" (Matthew 20:23)
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him.
A Misunderstood saying
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
People like to quote this saying, but they forget the following saying:
John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
This shows that what was meant was one in purpose, not one in substance as people think. The disciples could not become one human, but they can pursue the same goal. That is to say, they can be one in purpose, just as Jesus and the Father are one in purpose.
Did Jesus say everything John says he said?
John 14:9 Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life.
John 8:12 I am the light of the world.
John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I am.
John 10:7 I am the door of the sheep.
John 11:25 I am the resurrection, and the life.
John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life.
John 15:1 I am the true vine.
Christian scholars tell us that if Jesus had made all these fantastic claims about himself, the first three gospels would surely have recorded them. Mark was written around 70 C.E., followed by Matthew and Luke somewhere between 80-90 C.E. John, written around 100 C.E., was the last of the four canonized gospels. The Christian scholar James Dunn writes in his book The Evidence for Jesus:
"If they were part of the original words of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John picked them up and none of the others? Call it scholarly skepticism if you like, but I find it almost incredible that such sayings should have been neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus' teaching. If the 'I ams' had been part of the original tradition, it is very hard indeed to explain why none of the other three evangelists made use of them." (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 36)
Similarly, the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading How to Read Your Bible:
"It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them. . . . The Church was so firmly convinced that . . . Jesus . . . taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus' sayings." (St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, p.23)
What we have in John, then is what people were saying about Jesus at the time John was written (about 70 years after Jesus was raised up). The writer of John simply expressed those ideas as if Jesus had said them. Rev. James Dunn says further in his book that, almost certainly, the writer of the fourth gospel "was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today -- Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on." (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 43)
Scholars have concluded that this gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, "amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century." (The New Jerusalem Bible: Introduction to John, p. 1742)
It says further:
"It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." (p. 1742)
On a previous page, the same Bible says:
"It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, additions and sometimes even more than one revision of the same discourse." (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1739)
The New American Bible says that most scholars "have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original." (The New American Bible, Revised New Testament, p. 143)
God Reveals the Truth About Jesus
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" -- Cease! (it is) better for you! -- Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
The Messiah will not scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him:
Then, as for those who believed and did good works, unto them will He pay their wages in full, adding unto them of His bounty; and as for those who were scornful and proud, them will He punish with a painful doom.
And they will not find for them, against Allah, any protecting friend or helper.
O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light;
As for those who believe in Allah, and hold fast unto Him, them He will cause to enter into His mercy and grace, and He will guide them unto Him by a straight road.
(The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an: 4:171-176)
You use the following scripture references to deny that Jesus is God>
(John 20:17 RSV 1952)
> (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611)
>(Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
>.' " (Matthew 6:9 NIV)
You say,
>
> "Jesus made
>it clear that he is
>not God "
Do you really believe that these verses necessarily contradict other verses like:
(John 10:30) 'I and the Father are one."
(John 14:9) '.....He who has seen me has seen the Father;'
(John 14:11) 'Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;...'
(Matthew 11:27) '...and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son..'
(2 Corinthians 5:19) 'that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them,...'
(Revelation 1:17) 'Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.'
(John 14:6) 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father , but by me.'
If a man has a son will that son be less man then his father?
If God has a Son will he be less God than his Father.
You neglect to understand that there may be relationship between the Father and the Son and still be equality, that there may be distinction and at the same time unity.
You use this verse to say that Jesus was telling this man not praise him more than a human deserves:
> "Why do you
>call me good? No one
>is good but God alone."
>(Mark 10:18)
How do you know that Jesus was not instead, saying this to reveal the motives of this man's heart? Jesus does not say, "You should not call me good." , but "Why do you call me good?" it is like Jesus is asking, " Do you call me good because you know who I really am? Or is it just out of a habit of respectful language?"
>
The reality that Jesus is the Son of God is not just part of the Gospel of John. It is inextricably interwoven in the three other gospels as well. You make many statements that indicate the only way to reconcile certain verses is to attribute them to errors introduced into the scriptures by men. There is another way to reconcile these statements:
That they are all true. But the Truth doesn't need to be defended. I believe that if you are concerned with what is true you will find that the assumptions of your criticisms are not immutable, but that the Truth in Christ is.
Om_Mohammed
05-05-2001, 11:22
Jared...You have only further pointed out here...the many and varied contradictions within the bible. And...those contradictions and more...are contained within any ONE version of the bible, of which there are also many. Does that give you stronger ground to believe in this bible? Or...does it perhaps raise some questions about the truth of what is remaining of the bible. While I am on this topic of question...who has ever given men...the deacons of the church structure...the right or responsibility to revise and review from time to time...the wording, the content, and texture of the bible...in order that they can and do change it at their will?
Again...I not only suggest, but challenge you to read the Quran. You will find no such contradictions there...even in the translations of the meanings into other languages. It is a book of consistency, something that one can believe, and depend upon.
Do not be proud and arrogant, refusing to look at it out of some sort of fear. Again...do not become muslim...that is not the challenge nor the question here. But...read the quran...perhaps you may learn a little of what we are talking about here.
Om Mohammed.
part of my issues with christians when it comes to the bible and their teachings is that they fail to take the message as a whole.. rather they pick out pieces and expect others to ignore other parts. this does not seem logical in any form.
one should also learn the teachings of the one whom their discussing religion with.. you make a few mistakes jared.. one you assume that our understanding of the verses you qouted will lead us to the same conclusion as you.. but due to the foundation of our own beliefs.. we come to something totally different.
example..(John 14:6) 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father , but by me.' or (John 10:30) 'I and the Father are one."
as muslims we do accept that one can not accept Allah without accepting the prophets and messengers He sent as well. One can not seperate them and take them both in belief on equal footing.. we do not SEPERATE Allah from His messengers.. to reject any prophet or messenger is in essense to reject Allah. So we understand these words as just what we are told in Qur'an.. that in order to accept Our Creator we must accept the ones sent by Him..we must accept His prophets and messengers.. this does not make them the SAME.. in any sense.. so we will not understand such things as you do.
Om_Mohammed
06-05-2001, 03:48
Hmmm....Interesting points.
As well, the statement goes: 'I am the way...(till end of verse).' You will notice that the verse quotes Jesus as saying 'I am the way'...it is pointing out or meaning that to follow him, his teachings puts you on the path...the path to what? It is not quoting him as saying 'I am the destination', but rather 'the way'...there is a big difference. As with all the prophets before and after Jesus...to follow their instructions and their examples...is to be on the path...or 'on the way'...towards salvation, towards, the final destination...and that is to our Creator, inshaAllah.
Om Mohammed.
Om Mohammed,
I'm not too proud, arrogant or afraid to read the Quran, I have read it and refer to it. The Bibles that I have read, the different versions and translations have been substantially identical. All differences, wether due to varying manuscript sources, or translation choices, have not corrupted the scriptures or hindered all that they communicate. But it is certainly a miracle of God that His Book has been safeguarded. If presently someone were to try to substantially corrupt the Bible and still call it the Bible, God in his sovereignty would seperate that false book from His Book like so much of the spurious and heretical material in history that was rejected from the canon.
If there are any slight differences or changes that scribes and translators, in their dedicated works, have been responsible for, God has surely allowed nothing to pervert his Holy Word. Any writing that did truly pervert his Holy Word was seperated from his Holy Word.
I Certainly don't assume that you will come to the same conclusion as me Nzingha, but I do assume that the scriptures will speak for themselves, however sensetive or dull our hearing is.
God forbid that any Christian would fail to take the message as a whole. You should have an issue with them in this matter! And as for expecting you to ignore other parts, please don't meet their expectations!
I believe that your interpretation, Om_Mohammed, is not that which most naturally comes from the words themselves.
Jesus did not say:
"I am the one who will lead you on the way; I am the one who will lead you to the truth; I am the one who will lead you to life."
He said simply:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."
Sulaiman
08-05-2001, 18:07
Hi Jared
Let me tell you what I understand by the verse: I am the way, the truth and life.No one comes to my Father except through me.
When Jesus was here on earth, there was no other prophet.The Jews had to listen to him to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven.That is why he said these things.Also Jesus says I am the WAY not the DESTINATION.Do you get the difference?
Thanks
Sulaiman
Sulaiman
08-05-2001, 18:08
Hi Jared
Let me tell you what I understand by the verse: I am the way, the truth and life.No one comes to my Father except through me.
When Jesus was here on earth, there was no other prophet.The Jews had to listen to him to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven.That is why he said these things.Also Jesus says I am the WAY not the DESTINATION.Do you get the difference?
Thanks
Sulaiman
Sulaiman,
Yes I get what you are saying.
Jesus also says that He IS "..the Ressurection and the Life" John 11:25
Do you believe this is God's Word? Are you so sure in the logic that you may use to refute it that you are willing to go to
to face the Ressurrection in all confidence? I really hope that you consider this in all your criticisms of the Holy Scriptures, and let your zeal be tempered by the sobriety of what is at stake.
Sincerely,
Jared
alhamdliyesu
10-05-2001, 15:44
Do you even look up the original manuscripts?
Find out what it means in Greek before you start arguing again.
HODOS-a way, a travelled way, road, a travellers way, journey, travelling, a course of conduct, a way of thinking,feeling, deciding.
ALETHEIA-what is true pertaining to God and the duties of man, moral, and religious truth; truth as a personal excellence; that candour of mind which is free from affection, pretence, simulation, falsehood, deceit
ZOE-life; of the absolute fulness of life, both essential and ethical; life real and generous
OUDEIS- no one, nothing
ERCHOMAI- to follow (as in me), to go, to come, to be established, to be known by
PROS- near, by, towards, to the advantage of
'I am the road, I am what is true, I am the absolute fullness of life. No one comes to the advantage of the Father except through me.'
>When Jesus was here on earth,
>there was no other prophet.The
>Jews had to listen to
>him to obtain the Kingdom
>of Heaven.
as salaam alaikum
this is not totally correct.. because Yahya pbuh was alive during the time of Jesus pbuh.
but since you are discussing issues w/ christians.. by way of the bible Jesus pbuh was sent to the Jews with his message.. he said that he was sent only for the lost sheep of israel. It was not until the supposed resurrection does the bible record him telling his desciples to go out to the gentiles..
Yahya pbuh according to the bible is just a strange case altogher.. the whole baptizing jesus pbuh is a bit off with the whole trinity concept.. but than parts of the NT having Yahya pbuh KNOWING Jesus pbuh was the massiah.. than latter parts have him questioning Jesus pbuh on this very issue.. odd indeed
ma salaam
nzingha
Sulaiman
14-05-2001, 13:48
Hi Jace
Remember that the Bible has been tempered with, it has been corrupted by hands of man.What we are trying to do here is reconstruct the events that happened then.You seem to be overlooking this.Instead of acknowledging this you are busy trying to analyse corruption.
Thanks
Sulaiman
Sulaiman
14-05-2001, 13:52
Salaams brother
Correction noted.Yahyah died before Jesus's ascention remember? Therefore there was a time when Jesus was the only prophet.
Wasalaam
Sulaiman
alhamdliyesu
14-05-2001, 16:30
guess what! Jesus was humble...hmmm...humility...a novel concept.
THE COMPILATION OF THE QUR'AN IN PERSPECTIVE
1. THE QUR'AN'S TESTIMONY TO ITS OWN COMPILATION.
Notwithstanding the efforts of writers like Desai and Siddique to maintain the hypothesis of the Qur'an's perfect compilation it must surely be obvious from all that we have considered that the Qur'an went through a number of stages during which actions were taken to limit the variations in the written text and in its verbal recitation to establish, as far as each intervener could, a single text for the whole Muslim community. A mushaf waahid was the goal of the redactors, it was not their possession by divine preserve. The Hadith records testify consistently to the imperfection of the Qur'an text and what has come down through the ages to a single text can only be regarded as relatively authentic.
Some Muslim scholars are well aware that it is impossible to maintain the popular sentiment against the records in the Sirat, Hadith and Tafsir literature which testify quite unambiguously to the contrary. The shortcomings and inadequacies of the writings of apologists like Desai and Siddique are all too obvious. So these scholars take another line. By rejecting the Hadith records, they maintain that the Qur'an itself testifies to its own compilation and that this testimony is sufficient to prove that the Qur'an text, as it now stands, is absolutely authentic.
This is the theme of the article by Abdus Samad Abdul Kader titled How the Quran was Compiled referred to in the Introduction and it seems appropriate, in summing up our study of this subject, to begin with a review of his argument and the verses he quotes from the Qur'an to support it.
Right from the start Abdul Kader expresses the notion that indirectly underlies all Muslim studies on this subject. It is the assumption that, if the Qur'an was the Word of God revealed to Muhammad, then it must have been preserved to perfection throughout the ages since its deliverance. The fear is that, if it can be proved that the Qur'an has in any way been amended, or that passages have been lost, or that there is some confusion as to exactly what the original readings were, then the Qur'an's divine origin and authenticity in consequence must fall to the ground and be discounted. We have already seen that this is the motivating consideration behind Desai's booklet and Siddique's article and it explains why their approach to the subject is so sensitive, subjective and, at times, highly irrational. Abdul Kader expresses the conviction directly when he says in his article:
It was necessary that the Scripture that was to be for all mankind and for all times, should be complete, perfect and change-proof. An incomplete scripture, and one that men changed from time to time, cannot be a guide to mankind. ... A Scripture that is meant for the whole of mankind ... has to be protected from being interpolated and changed by human hands. (Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11 No.2, p.1).
In these statements the author gives sufficient proof that the doctrine of the Qur'an's perfect preservation arises not from a scholarly study of the history of the text but from a popular sentiment that is imposed upon it, a presupposition that has to be maintained at all costs. "It was necessary", he says, to preserve the text; such a scripture "should be complete, perfect"; it "has to be protected from being interpolated". This is the language of presupposition, it is the spirit of hypothesis, it indicates that, before the scholar has even come to a study of his subject, he has already decided long in advance what his findings and conclusion will be. No matter what directions the evidences may lead, the matter is predetermined. It is hardly necessary to say that such an approach is subjective in the extreme and will not yield a balanced or accurate perspective.
The Muslim approach to this whole subject is hard to understand for, if a book never was the Word of God in the first place, no amount of proof that it has been absolutely and perfectly preserved will make it the Word of God. Conversely, if a book was indeed the Word of God at the time when it was first inscribed, the later existence of a few suspect passages and variant readings which do not affect the overall content of the text would not negate its original divine authenticity. Nevertheless, having thus briefly considered the emotional Muslim approach to the subject, let us return to it at a purely factual / interpretational level so that we may conclude with a balanced perspective on what the history of the Qur'an text really was and the extent to which the text, as it stands today, can be regarded as authentic.
Abdul Kader quotes the following verse in proof of his contention that the Qur'an testifies to its own completion and attendant perfection:
Completed is the Word of thy Sustainer, in truth and in justice; there is naught that may change his Words. Surah 6.116
Even a superficial study of the text will show that the completion spoken of is not the Qur'an as a book but rather the extent of the words of God in truth and justice. Arberry translates this verse "Perfect are the words of thy Lord in truthfulness and justice" and Yusuf Ali gives the same application: "The Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice". The key word here is tammat, meaning "to be fulfilled", and it is clear that the subject of the perfection spoken of is the truth and justice of God's words and not the text of the Qur'an as a book. The word appears yet again in Surah 11.119 where it is said "the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled (tammat): 'I will fill Hell with jinns and men all together'". The context makes it quite clear that we are dealing with a fulfilment of God's words and not of the completion of a text.
As the Qur'an was still in the process of compilation at the time when this verse (Surah 6.116) became a part of its text it is hard to see in any event how it can testify to the Qur'an's supposed perfect compilation. The book was very much incomplete at this point and it is well-nigh impossible to see how this text can be manipulated to prove that the Qur'an was eventually perfectly compiled and preserved to the last dot and letter.
Although Abdul Kader concedes that the Qur'an was being delivered piecemeal over a number of years and is aware that there were many loose parchments and other materials upon which it was being inscribed, to draw the conclusion that the Qur'an was, in fact, perfectly preserved in a single text he argues that the following text testifies to a collection of these parchments into a single book:
And (by) a Book inscribed, on fine parchment, unrolled. Surah 52.2-3.
The text, like the other one quoted, is very general in its description and it requires no small amount of imagination to make it testify to the perfection of the Qur'an text. Yet, when it is studied in its context, it will be seen that the kitab (translated by Abdul Kader "a Book") spoken of is not the Qur'an at all but one of the five signs of the coming Day of Judgment. The whole context reads:
By the Mount (at-Tuur), by a Decree (Kitaabin) inscribed in a scroll unfolded, by the much-frequented House (al-Bait), by the Canopy (as-saqf) raised high, and by the Ocean (al-Bahr) filled with swell, verily the Doom of your Lord will come to Pass. Surah 52.1-7.
Once again we see that the passage has nothing to do with the actual compilation of the text of the Qur'an at all and it soon becomes very obvious that Abdul Kader is devoid of evidences for the perfection of the Qur'an in the Hadith records and, in consequence, finds himself constrained to force texts of the Qur'an to yield meanings never intended by the author of the book to provide the required proofs. He concludes by claiming that the Qur'an, in the following verse, actually testifies to a "master copy" of its text that was being preserved:
That this is indeed a Noble Qur'an, in a Book preserved. Surah 56.77-78.
What is the original Arabic word in this text which Abdul Kader translates as "preserved"? It is maknuun which comes from the root word kanna, meaning "to hide". From this word come the following words used in the Qur'an: aknaan, meaning "a refuge" or hiding-place in the mountains (Surah 16.81); akkinah, meaning "veils" or coverings upon men's hearts (Surah 6.25, etc.); and akanna, meaning "to hide" something in the heart (Surah 2.235). Thus the clear underlying meaning of any form of this word is to conceal or to hide, and Arberry translates Surah 56.78 as "a hidden Book". It would appear that what the Qur'an is really saying of itself is that it is "a concealed scripture" without explaining what this means. In any event it once again is very hard to see how this can be distorted into a testimony to the Qur'an's textual perfection and completion at the end of Muhammad's life. We again have a general and rather vague statement taken right out of context to support a cherished hypothesis.
Ultimately it is the gradual compilation of the Qur'an during Muhammad's lifetime that is the strongest argument against any evidence in the Qur'an (were any to exist) regarding its own completion and perfection. Surah 56.78 and Surah 80.13-16, which is also quoted by Abdul Kader and says no more than that the Qur'an texts were being written on suhuf (parchments) by pious scribes, both come from the very early Meccan period. This was at the time when the Qur'an text was only just beginning to take shape and there is no way that such passages can be adduced in support of the Qur'an's ultimate supposed textual completion and perfection. We find it strange that it should be argued that a book which throughout Muhammad's final years was still being supplemented by additional passages and texts can, in the middle of its course, suddenly testify to its own exactness and completeness!
As long as Muhammad lived there was always a possibility that further passages might be added to the text and the Qur'an nowhere draws the curtain upon itself. There is no verse in the Qur'an stating that the text had been completed and that no further passages could be expected. As we saw early in this book, more was being added to the Qur'an just before Muhammad's death than at any other time during his mission. It was the death of Muhammad that fixed the extent of the Qur'an text, it was this event alone that brought the compilation of the book to a sudden conclusion. Throughout Muhammad's life the Qur'an continued to expand and we must therefore conclude that the Qur'an cannot possibly testify to its own completeness or the extent of the preservation of its text.
There is only one place in the Qur'an where the word jama'ah (to compile or collect together) is used in connection with the text of the book itself, namely in Surah 75.17 where Allah is quoted as saying "It is for Us to collect it and to recite it". It is surprising that Abdul Kader overlooked this verse altogether in his article as it is the closest the Qur'an comes to saying anything significant about its own compilation. Nonetheless it makes Allah speak of collecting the Qur'an before it is recited from heaven to Muhammad, so it too cannot be adduced as evidence for the collection of the text after the time of its deliverance.
It is our opinion that none of the texts quoted by Abdul Kader even remotely testify to the supposed textual perfection and completion of the Qur'an as compiled by his companions at the end of his life. As said already, a book that at all times during its composition was still being supplemented by fresh material cannot possibly give evidence as to the completeness of the final product.
Abdul Kader's whole argument centres on the compilation of the Qur'an during the lifetime of Muhammad and understandably so, for the Qur'an could not testify historically in advance to the course of the text after Muhammad's death. Yet it is precisely this restriction to his lifetime that renders the Qur'an an incompetent witness to the state of the text at the time of its completion. That completion only came upon the death of Muhammad and it is to independent historical records of the text thereafter that we must turn for the evidences we require, namely the series of Hadith records we have already considered.
2. A "MASTER COPY OF THE QUR'AN" IN THE MASJID AN-NABI?
In sharp contrast to the records we have been studying throughout this book on the development and collection of the Qur'an text we find Abdul Kader declaring that a "Master copy of the Qur'an" was kept by Muhammad and that all other texts of the Qur'an in written form were copied from this original text. He says:
The Master Copy of the collection of the portions of the Quran was kept under special care in a safe in the Masjid-e-Nabawee (Mosque of the Prophet) in Madeenah. It had a special place near the column called astawaanah mus-hif (the column of the Master Copy). This Master Copy was called the Imam (leader) or Umm (source). (Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11, No.2, p.2).
He goes on to allege that the copies made from this master copy were transcribed "under the personal supervision of the Prophet". These are all allegations of fact and yet the writer, like Desai, gives no documentation or authority for his claims. The Qur'an itself nowhere states that a perfect copy of its text was being kept in a safe in the masjid an-nabi of Medina near a column named after it, so Abdul Kader must have obtained this information from another source, but he neglects to substantiate his statements with disclosures of his sources and his claims therefore cannot be tested or critically analysed.
We have seen already that materials upon which the Qur'an was being written were being kept in Muhammad's house at Medina (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.137) but there are express statements in the same compilation of early records of the Qur'an text which make it plain that the Qur'an had not been brought together into a single location during Muhammad's lifetime, whether in his own home or anywhere else (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.96). Abdul Kader's statements are set right against the evidences furnished in the Hadith records and other historical sources we have mentioned and, as his claims have no factual basis in the Qur'an, it would be most interesting to know where he obtains his information. His silence on these sources would appear to us to be most significant.
All that he has shown is that, if the Hadith records of the compilation of the Qur'an text are not accepted, there is really no other source to consult. The Qur'an furnishes virtually no useful information at all about its own codification and collection into a single text and, in fact, when one considers the nature of the Qur'an itself, one finds that it is a most improbable witness to the completeness or otherwise of its text.
There is no chronological sequence of any kind in the Qur'an. The surahs have generally been arranged from the longest to the shortest so that the earliest passages appear at the end of the book and the later passages at the beginning. There is nothing of historical foundation in the Qur'an in that no event recorded in the book is ever dated and no regard is paid to any kind of historical sequence in the book.
If the Qur'an does not serve as a good history book, then nor does it offer much of geographical value either. Only one place is mentioned by name in the Qur'an - Mecca in Surah 3.96 (where it is named Bakkah) - and nothing else is given any sort of location in the book. No one reading the Qur'an alone could place any event it records at any point in history or give a specific geographical placement to any locality it mentions or otherwise speaks about.
Many of the longer surahs are made up of passages dating from both Muhammad's mission at Mecca and at Medina and within these composite surahs we find the subject of the text varying from legal restriction to prophetic narratives, from ethical teaching to praises to God, etc., coupled with numerous catch-phrases. More often than not the different subjects of the longer surahs have no connection with each other at all.
The Qur'an is, in these respects, a quite disjointed book. As it stands today it is a collection of fragmentary texts and passages compiled into an unharmonious whole without respect to sequence or theme. It is hardly the kind of book that can offer useful testimony to its own textual accuracy or completion. It has no definite beginning or conclusion and there is no way that a study of the Qur'an text alone can assist one to determine whether it has been completely preserved, nor is there anything in the book to prove that nothing has been omitted from its pages or modified in the process of compilation.
It is only in the Hadith records that we find any evidence as to how the Qur'an really was originally compiled. The science of the study of the Hadith literature has often centred on the reliability or otherwise of the Hadith texts and some Muslim scholars have rejected the Hadith records of the Qur'an's compilation as unreliable because it was well-known that, in the early days of Islam, some Hadith material was fabricated and was handed down alongside material that was authentic.
Such inauthentic hadith records were usually related to opposing schools of law or political issues. The rivalry between the Umayyads and the Abbasids resulted in many records being fabricated to favour the one or the other and as the fiqh (jurisprudence) of Islam developed, so traditions were invented to provide authority for different maxims of law. Many of these can be recognised as fabrications merely through a cursory study of their contents, but to determine the reliability of the rest of the Hadith literature various means were applied to each specific tradition. How sound was its isnad (its chain of transmitters)? How many independent records of the same tradition existed - was it an isolated (ahad) record, a generally accepted text (mashur), or was it widely attested (mutawatir)? Then again, after a consideration of these issues, could it be classed as sahih (genuine), hasan (fair) or da'if (weak), or should it be discounted entirely as mardud (to be rejected)?
This science of classification has rarely been applied to the traditions setting out how the Qur'an was compiled. The earliest records of the collection of the Qur'an were generally taken at face value as this subject was not one which spawned any motivation for fabrication, although John Burton argues to the contrary in his book The Collection of the Qur'an, suggesting that many of the verses said to be missing from the Qur'an were invented after Muhammad's death to give support and authority to the legal maxims of those who made them up. He applies the same argument to some of the recorded variant readings of the Qur'an. None of the three writers who wrote articles in reply to my earlier notes on the compilation of the Qur'an text, however, raised such a possibility, nor did they make any attempt to define which traditions could be accepted and which should be rejected.
There is no standard by which those early records can really be distinguished. Any scholar seeking to separate them into those which can be approved and those which cannot will have to rely almost exclusively on his own initiative and his findings will have to be purely subjective and speculative.
One cannot dispense with some of the Hadith records on this subject without eventually doing away with them all as they give an overall impression of how the Qur'an was codified into a single text and, as we shall see in the last section of this chapter, they are far more consistent in giving a general picture of what actually occurred than some scholars are willing to admit. The fact is that, without these records, there is no evidence as to how the Qur'an was compiled. If they are to be rejected, then nothing authoritative whatsoever can be said about the manner in which the Qur'an was compiled into what it is today. The record of the codification of the Qur'an text as found in the early Sirat, Hadith and Tafsir literature is the only historical source in Islam to consult - without it there is only a void and nothing authoritative really can be said. No other thesis about the original collection of the Qur'an can be documented or grounded in historical evidences. Let us press on in closing to a review of the history of the text as we have thusfar set it out.
3. A REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN TEXT.
We are left with a sharp contrast between sentiment and reality in Islam on the subject of the authenticity of the Qur'an text. Popular sentiment opts for the claim that the Qur'an text has been perfectly preserved by divine authority without so much as an alteration in the text of any kind whatsoever. Reality, however, testifies to a far more mundane and predictable history of the text with much evidence as to passages that are now missing from the Qur'an, substantial variant readings that existed in the earliest codices, and other variants in dialect which have survived more than one attempt to establish a universally accepted single text. Yet another typical testimony to the loss of portions of the Qur'an in the early days can be mentioned here.
In his short section on the codex of Abdullah ibn Umar, in speaking of differences in reading between Abdullah and the other companions of Muhammad, Ibn Abi Dawud quotes Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash as saying:
Many of the companions of the Prophet of Allah (saw) had their own reading of the Qur'an, but they died and their readings disappeared soon afterwards. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.83).
What sort of evidence would have been required to substantiate the Muslim hypothesis of a perfect text? Firstly, there would most certainly have had to be a complete silence in the Hadith records regarding missing passages, variant readings and the like. The historical sources of Islam apart from the Qur'an itself would have had to support the theory of an absolutely perfect text instead of contradicting this theory as consistently as they do. We would have required sound evidence that the Qur'an was carefully inscribed in a single text during Muhammad's lifetime and that this text had survived his death and been carefully looked after as the sole authority from which other copies alone could be made. This is very much what Abdul Kader alleges as the actual history of the text but his claim is directly contrary to the evidences which show that it was only after Muhammad's death that any attempt was made to collect the Qur'an into a single text.
As pointed out already, Abdul Kader furnishes no proofs, evidences or documentation for his theory and it appears that the wish has become father to the thought. He rejects the Hadith not because they are unreliable but because he finds them unacceptable in that they solidly undermine the theory he cherishes so much. Instead, being aware of the sort of evidences that would have been required, he summarily sets forth the ideal as historical fact without offering any source material that can be checked or critically reviewed.
A very different history of the text of the Qur'an would have had to be recorded than the one that the heritage of Islam has preserved for us to support the case for a text absolutely free of alteration, omission or variation. We would have required very strong evidences that only one text of the Qur'an ever came down through those early years of Muslim history and these evidences would have had to show quite convincingly that the whole text, verse for verse, is precisely the same today as it was then. There would also have had to be no evidences to show that other codices, differing from the standard text, had ever existed. Such is the kind of proof we would require to entertain seriously the claim that the Qur'an text had been preserved to perfection without variations of any kind. Our study shows that such proof and the evidences required therefor quite simply do not exist.
The evidences that do exist for the history of the Qur'an text on the contrary ruin the claim for the Qur'an's textual perfection and relegate such a claim to the realms of popular sentiment and wishful thinking. These evidences, in their broad outline, give us a very reasonable picture of the development of the text and, in fact, allowing for the unusual nature of the Qur'an as a book, yield very much the kind of history that we would have been inclined to expect. Instead of a case for divine preservation we find a very mundane and predictable course.
The Qur'an was compiled piecemeal, was not compiled in a single book during Muhammad's lifetime, was recited by many companions and was read at the time by Muslims with varying Arabic dialects. The course of the text thereafter down to the present day is largely what one would have expected and is generally consistent with itself, most certainly in its broad outline.
After Muhammad's death passages of the Qur'an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur'an's automatic completion as a book once its mediator had passed away inspired a number of companions to compile their own codices of the text. These were basically consistent with each other in their general content but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts and no two codices were entirely the same. In addition the text was being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world.
During the reign of Uthman a deliberate attempt was made to standardise the Qur'an and impose a single text upon the whole community. The codex of Zaid was chosen for this purpose because it was close at hand and, having been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, had not attracted publicity as one of the varying texts as those of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b had done. The other codices were summarily destroyed and Zaid's text became the textus receptus for the whole Islamic world as a result.
Numerous records were retained, however, showing that key passages were missing from this text. It also had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph's standard for a single approved text. After Uthman's death, however, al-Hajjaj, the governor at Kufa, made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text.
As the early codices were only written in consonantal form, however, the varying dialects survived largely unaffected by Uthman's action and it was only three centuries later that a scholar, Ibn Mujahid, managed to limit these to seven distinctly defined readings in accordance with a tradition which stated that the Qur'an originally came in seven different readings although the tradition itself made no attempt to define these readings.
Over the succeeding centuries the Qur'an continued to be read in seven different forms until five of them largely fell into disuse. Eventually only those of Hafs and Marsh survived and, with the introduction of a printed Qur'an, the text of Hafs began to take almost universal prominence.
The Qur'an text as it is read and printed throughout the Muslim world today is only Zaid's version of it, duly corrected where necessary, later amended by al-Hajjaj, and read according to one of seven approved different readings. This is the reality - a far cry from the popular sentiment which argues for a single text right from the time of Muhammad himself. The reality, however, based on all the evidences available, shows that the single text as it stands today was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardisation of a preferred text at the initiative of a subsequent caliph and not by prophetic direction or divine decree.
The Qur'an is an authentic text to the extent that it largely retains the material initially delivered by Muhammad. No evidence of any addition to the text exists and, in respect of the vast number of variant readings and missing passages that have been recorded, there does not appear to be anything actually affecting or contradicting the basic content of the book. In this respect one can freely assume a relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. On the contrary there is no basis in history, facts or the evidences for the development of the text to support the cherished hypothesis that the Qur'an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter.
salam all!
Thanx for the REALLY long artile.....first off, if you talk about ahadith, it it usually better to post it and it's origin. Anyway, my question to you is this....DO you believe in science?
i'm sure the answer to this is yes. Anyway, coming to the point....if something is proven by science, would you not believe in it? well, the Quran is a very special scripture, it has many scientific things that were discovered not too long ago. Some examples? sure....#1 the Quran discusses the stages of pregnancy(ppl back then couldn't know that) you can find these in ayat 23:14,40:67 and many more. #2 Mixing of oceans(27:61,55:19-22)#3 formation of clouds(30:48,24:43)#4 plant reproductive organs (20:53,22:5 & others) #5 Big bang! (21:30,14:11). Those are a few of the things that are listed in the Holy Quran. They are all scientific things that people back then couldn't have known. Now, if Allah did not lie to us about the scientific aspects of the world, why would He lie about keepings His Quran safe? By the way, if you'd like to know where to find more science in the Quran, try these pgs: the modern religion and it is the truth. That's all i have to say.
rhabaqe
P.S. What on earth is the Holy Ghost?
Your statement: salam all!
Thanx for the REALLY long artile.....first off, if you talk about ahadith, it it usually better to post it and it's origin. Anyway, my question to you is this....DO you believe in science?
i'm sure the answer to this is yes. Anyway, coming to the point....if something is proven by science, would you not believe in it? well, the Quran is a very special scripture, it has many scientific things that were discovered not too long ago. Some examples? sure....#1 the Quran discusses the stages of pregnancy(ppl back then couldn't know that) you can find these in ayat 23:14,40:67 and many more. #2 Mixing of oceans(27:61,55:19-22)#3 formation of clouds(30:48,24:43)#4 plant reproductive organs (20:53,22:5 & others) #5 Big bang! (21:30,14:11). Those are a few of the things that are listed in the Holy Quran. They are all scientific things that people back then couldn't have known. Now, if Allah did not lie to us about the scientific aspects of the world, why would He lie about keepings His Quran safe? By the way, if you'd like to know where to find more science in the Quran, try these pgs: the modern religion and it is the truth. That's all i have to say.
rhabaqe
P.S. What on earth is the Holy Ghost?
--> First of all, the above article was an article I found which to me is a rather objective and dissection of the compilation of the Quran..It shows without bias that the myth of the perservation of Quran is adopted by almost all Muslims around the world.
Hmmmm, what you said is really subjective. So in a subjective manner, I will respond. What makes you think that it is God that gave all this science revelations to man?? You think it was really Gabriel that spoke to Muhammad?? Considering, Islam denial of Christ as Saviour. You asked "What on earth is the Holy Ghost?" Before I answer you, I would like you to tell me what is God...& I don't mean His characteristics(i.e Just, Almighty..etc.etc) I want you to tell me about Him personally..
hello,
I haven't read the whole article.. rather long I am printing it out to read latter. But it seems to refer to early portions.. is this from a book or a website? can you let me know where you took this portion from I would like to view the whole thing.
nzingha
alhamdliyesu
15-05-2001, 15:28
Well, Asif,
As pertaining to the gospel of John and the other 3 gospels, I think I might clear a few things up.
The gospels were written in exactness of Yeshua's words. They were written at about 50-55 A.D. This was only 20 years after Yeshua's death. People everywhere could say Yeshua's exact words, and if anyone wrote the wrong thing, the people would know and complain. The injil was written far too soon after Yeshua' death and resurrection too become legend. The Jews were notorious for their stickling for perfection. They would have blown the validity of the injil in a second if they were wrong.
Maybe that's why they are His chosen people.
alhamdliyesu
15-05-2001, 15:33
Go on, tell to me the thing on(qulli haga on) the falsehoods of the Bible, I know you want to. Bear in mind that the Gospels were supposed to be the exact record of the Words of Yeshua.
Ok, the website is: www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
Firefly
Sulaiman
15-05-2001, 17:50
Hi Jace
>guess what! Jesus was humble...hmmm...humility...a
>novel concept.
To whom is humility novel? Jesus was NOT always humile.He lost his temper in ways more than one.So do not try and paint the lamb-like picture again, its outdated.In fact its more than outdated, its a myth.
Thanks
Sulaiman
Sulaiman
15-05-2001, 18:26
Hi there
You wrote a very long article which comes up to nothing actually because it misses so many important things.Let me tell you a miracle that will put your worry to rest.Have you ever heard of a month called Ramadaan? Well,every Ramadaan Gabriel use to come to the prophet and they both recited the already revealed portion of the Quraan.This used to happen every year during Ramadaan.When the Quraan was COMPLETE, Gabriel came three times in the same year to recite,WITH the prophet, the ENTIRE Quraan.This is how the prophet knew that he was going to die soon.This should be proof enough for you that the revelation of the Quraan can not be compared to anything under the sun.The Quraan is the very word of Allah, it is still as motivating, as moving and as touching as it was when read more than 1500 years ago.Its revelation was crafted to PERFECTION from the begining to the very end by Him who is Exalted in Might, the Most Knowing.If you want to attack or think you can attack the Quraan textually, do so fairly.Bring FACTS to the fore, not suppositions.When you do a textual review of the Quraan, do so justly, hear all the facts in front of you THEN make an opinion.By the way, just out of curiosity, have you done this review on the Bible? Have you or what is in the Bible you accept WITHOUT RATIONALITY and CONDITIONS?To do a review is a good thing BUT you should have started with your very own Bible.
Thanks
Sulaiman
Sulaiman
15-05-2001, 18:32
Hi Jace
The Jews were
>notorious for their stickling for
>perfection. They would have
>blown the validity of the
>injil in a second if
>they were wrong.
Wake up dear.The Jews are BURNING the'injil' in Israel as we speak.If the Jews are notorios for stickling to perfection, how is it that the have a different view from yours? Could it be that you are NOT notorious for stickling to perfection?
Thanks
Sulaiman
salam,
Well, to tell you the truth i wouldn't be able to tell you what God is! All i know is that God is nothing that our simple minds can understand. He is NOTHING like his creations. He has no limits and is so great that when PART of him was shown to a mountain, it crumbled into nothing! One more thing that i forgot to add in my first writing was about the part of the Quran not being complete. When Muhammad (pbuh) realized that he was gonna pass, he called together all the muslims and talked to them. During his speach he recited the last revelation which stated that: In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate " ...Today I have perfected for you your religionand completed My grace on you....(5:3)" Anyway, I asked the question about the Holy Ghost because i don't know what it is ....i know what it did, but i don't know what it is.... that's all though....:)
Rhabaqe
Your statement: You wrote a very long article which comes up to nothing actually because it misses so many important things.Let me tell you a miracle that will put your worry to rest.Have you ever heard of a month called Ramadaan? Well,every Ramadaan Gabriel use to come to the prophet and they both recited the already revealed portion of the Quraan.This used to happen every year during Ramadaan.When the Quraan was COMPLETE, Gabriel came three times in the same year to recite,WITH the prophet, the ENTIRE Quraan.This is how the prophet knew that he was going to die soon.This should be proof enough for you that the revelation of the Quraan can not be compared to anything under the sun.The Quraan is the very word of Allah, it is still as motivating, as moving and as touching as it was when read more than 1500 years ago.Its revelation was crafted to PERFECTION from the begining to the very end by Him who is Exalted in Might, the Most Knowing.If you want to attack or think you can attack the Quraan textually, do so fairly.Bring FACTS to the fore, not suppositions.When you do a textual review of the Quraan, do so justly, hear all the facts in front of you THEN make an opinion.By the way, just out of curiosity, have you done this review on the Bible? Have you or what is in the Bible you accept WITHOUT RATIONALITY and CONDITIONS?To do a review is a good thing BUT you should have started with your very own Bible.
--> Sulaiman, have you read the article?? First of all, I didn't write it..I found the article which is actually only a small fragment of a bigger picture relating to the myth of the Quran that almost all Muslims believe nowadays. These articles which I have read through with interest are based on factual evidence & the manner which the article is written is in a way which I feel is unbiased. Perhaps if you were a bit more open minded, I believe you will see to what the article is trying to put forth. I accept the Bible as the only Word of God & yes, I have done my research(& still doing it) about the authenticity & rationality of the Bible...I believe that the Bible is like an ongoing process whereby you discover many things about life & about yourself along the way.
>Ok, the website is: www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
>
gag.. well the last thing i think of jochen and his sight is unbiased. I have personally found many faults w/ his sight and he tends to be stubborn and unbending even when proven wrong. There other other sites that actually respond to his.. such as akbar mehrly (sp?) sight, answering christianity, the Learners sight (I forget the url right now) and the like. although some of these sights lack on some points.
oh well
- Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.
al-Imam Al-Shafi'i
Sulaiman
16-05-2001, 09:36
Hi Firefly
As to who wrote the article is besides the point.To me, by your putting it here, tells that you believe in what it says.Therefore I put you in the same category as the writers.
What you are doing is very interesting.You first BELIEVE in the Bible and then RESEARCH on it.The normal way of events would be to research BEFORE you believe.To me, it does not make sense to research after believing something.What are you doing this all for? To convince YOURSELF that the Bible if 100% pure?Beacuse you WANT it to be like that.
Thanks
Sulaiman
alhamdliyesu
16-05-2001, 16:33
They would have spread throughout the region that the accounts of the gospels were totally wrong, had they been wrong. There are records in the original manuscript of the Jewish Talmuds and records of the Sanhedrim. I'm going to tell you something that may shock you, I'm Jewish. I know what the orthodox are doing in Israel.
Your statement: What you are doing is very interesting.You first BELIEVE in the Bible and then RESEARCH on it.The normal way of events would be to research BEFORE you believe.To me, it does not make sense to research after believing something.What are you doing this all for? To convince YOURSELF that the Bible if 100% pure?Beacuse you WANT it to be like that.
--> Wow, a very interesting conclusion Sulaiman. It makes me wonder how you read the Scriptures. First of all, I BELIEVE the Bible through the revelation of God. Now, you might go, "Oh my, which passage did you refer to? or "Kindly explain in English what is this revelation so called?". I did not refer to any passages & I can't explain to you(in the order for you to understand) this revelation of God. In many ways, I have experienced God's grace & to which my walk in Christ have encounter a lot of obstacles whether it is earthly or spiritual. All these have proven to me(along with the Scriptures) that the Bible is the only and true Word of God.
When I say RESEARCH, I mean to as in a deeper understanding to what has been written. For example, how would this affect my life(referring to Scriptures) & how could I worship God better. Noticed my last sentence was that I said that the Scriptures could help me in becoming a better person & learn more about life???
When I began to participate in this forum, I did another form of research, which is basically trying to see how Muslims intrepret the Bible. In a few months time, I will have the sufficient time to go through it adequately.(I am referring to Nzingha) :)
Sulaiman, elements of emotions brings no benefit in this sort of discussion & neither does baseless conclusions. Your latest reply disappoints me in that manner.
Well, if you think so. Anyway, when I have the time I will visit the Islam website..Answering Christianity is it??? Hmmm, I think it would be possible to arrive there through Yahoo.
There are a few sites that deal w/ the things brought up on Jochen's site.. here are a few i know about
http://www.understanding-islam.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/
http://www.themodernreligion.com
http://www.answering-christianity.com
http://www.mostmerciful.com
- Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.
al-Imam Al-Shafi'i
Sulaiman
17-05-2001, 14:05
Hi
>--> Wow, a very interesting conclusion Sulaiman. It makes me wonder how you read the Scriptures. First of all, I BELIEVE the Bible through the revelation of God.
This is what you are missing dear.HOW do you know itys God's revelation in the first place? Think about this.
I did not refer to any passages & I can't explain to you(in the order for you to understand) this revelation of God. In many ways, I have experienced God's grace & to which my walk in Christ have encounter a lot of obstacles whether it is earthly or spiritual. All these have proven to me(along with the Scriptures) that the Bible is the only and true Word of God.
And you have the temerity to say I make emtional statements.My statements are not emotional........they are rational.Its tours that are emotional.
> When I say
>RESEARCH, I mean to as
>in a deeper understanding to
>what has been written. For
>example, how would this affect
>my life(referring to Scriptures) &
>how could I worship God
>better.
First you have to know HOW God wants you to worship him BEFORE you worry about perfecting your worship.Your problem is that you first PRESUME that the Bible is correct and then you work from there.Now I do not make any presumptions along the way when I am searching for the truth, I turn EVERY stone I come across.Thats the difference between you and I.
Noticed my last sentence
>was that I said that
>the Scriptures could help me
>in becoming a better person
>& learn more about life???
Again this suppose that the scriptures are necesaarily good. Do you see my point?
> When I began
>to participate in this forum,
>I did another form of
>research, which is basically trying
>to see how Muslims intrepret
>the Bible.
The problem is you started by believing in the Bible first before coming here.Its unfair view of Islam, its very biased.
> Sulaiman, elements of
>emotions brings no benefit in
>this sort of discussion &
>neither does baseless conclusions. Your
>latest reply disappoints me in
>that manner.
Thats not the problem.The problem is that we have different understandings of what constitute baseless or baseful conclusions.
Thanks
Sulaiman
Sulaiman
17-05-2001, 14:13
Hi Jace
The fact that you are Jewish does not mean they Jews in Israel are not burning the New Testament.
Thanks
Sulaiman
alhamdliyesu
17-05-2001, 19:54
I know this my friend.
Israel is far from God's country.
It's a horrible place.
alhamdliyesu
17-05-2001, 20:00
you never did tell me the contradictions in the Bible.
alhamdliyesu
20-05-2001, 06:52
My goodness, do you actually think that I think that Yeshua has one emotion or personality trait?
I was emphasizing that humility in your arguing(call it what you like) is necessary.
alhamdliyesu
20-05-2001, 06:54
Umm...I am a hypocrite in saying this, but do you ever realize how far we get off subject in our logical debates?
I agree. Not only do we respond to the arguments presented, we have to explain our explainations which then again requires explainations which then again requires explainations......ending up in a viscious cycle straying far away from the original topic. Even the other topic, it was progressing nicely when a few "emotional statements" were made & caused the discussion to go hay-wire.
Sulaiman
22-05-2001, 09:49
Jace
>Umm...I am a hypocrite in saying
>this, but do you ever
>realize how far we get
>off subject in our logical
>debates?
This is no debate.........its more of a lesson than debate.To me, debate means both parties are well founded in what they talk about and most of all understand what they are saying.Not what is happening here.The reason why we go off the topic is that the other party seem to know and understand MORE than the other.This creates a situation where the party that knows more has to explain his every statement.This creates a one-way-talk with one party doing the talking and the other doing the listening.That is no debate, its a lesson for the one who knows less.That is where the problem is ladies and gentleman.I rest my case........
Thanks
Sulaiman
LAST EDITED ON 18-10-01 AT 01:53 PM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 18-10-01 AT 02:07*AM (GMT)
Peace all:
Wow! I'm a relative newcomer to this site, and I just finished all these essays in this section today. It looks like the original post that started it all has been deleted.
Firefly -- great article about the Qur'an! Like the post to the "101 Contradictions...."Thanks for putting it out there.
I will not respond directly to the original list of Biblical passages from Asif that head this whole discussion.
However, to the Muslims: I am really trying to understand this whole argument y'all keep making about the consistency of the Qur'an?
I have three problems with it:
1) If it were true, I don't see what it proves. Absolute consistency could be a sign of collusion, conspiracy, and fallsification. How do we know that Uthman and his court didn't conspire to create a consistent standard text in order to unite an empire? For that matter, even if Mohammed wrote the whole thing (which even Muslims don't say), why should I believe him over the author's of the gospel of John? Absolute consistency is not absolutely convincing.
2) It's not true as you define it. In actual fact, when you apply the EXACT same historical-critical methods that we Christians apply to our OWN Bible to the Qur'an, the Qur'an is not shown to be originated in Mohammed's life-time. Nor is it perfectly preserved. Nor is it perfectly consistent. Nor is it true that there were never variant readings, additionas, or deletions. This does not make it a false scripture to a Christian, because we use the same methods on our own Bible and find the same discrepancies in our own tradition. We have reconciled those discrepencies with our faith and realize that there is a general consistency in the gospel message. We find the same general consistency in the Qur'an, but not the absolute consistency you seem to want to believe. When you quote Rev. James Dunn or the commentaries in the fronts of your Bibles, you are acknowledging the validity of historical-critical methods, but you won't let us apply the same method to the Qur'an. Why is the historical-critical method true when applied to the Bible, but not when it's applied to the Qur'an? Nor does it make any sense to quote the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an. That's a circular argument that proves nothing. We must use common methods to interpret textual validity or our discussion is menaingless.
3) The so-called contradictions we are discussing can all be reconciled rationally within our repective faiths, whether they are found in the Qur'an or the Bible. There are over a billion people in both religions. In both religions, there are extremely intelligent people. Intelligent people do not hold on to completely irrational, totally contradictory, and illogical beliefs for thousands of years. As you Muslims studied the Qur'an your first time through, I'm sure you ran into a passage you did not understand, or that seemed to somewhat contradict passage another on the surface. I know I have. So you consult a Hadith, find another verse of the Qur'an, or ask an Iman and eventually you find an answer, and realize the original problem was only an apperant contradiction. We Christians have the same experience with our Bibles or with reflection on the Trinity. Admittedly, when you toss 101 questions at us at once -- it's a bit hard to answer them all. But there are answers. My point is that we Christians can answer all these questions if you really, honestly want to listen to the answer. I come to this site with the assumption you can answer my questions about your faith. Can you trust us that we can answer yours?
Am I saying that both religions are equally true? No.
Here's how I look at it. There is one ultimate truth, and both Christians and Muslims believe that the key truth is that there is only one God. That's pretty major!
Now, we disagree about Jesus. Christians say this Jesus is God in the flesh, and Muslims say he's just a prophet. Some Christians say that Muslims will go to hell because they don't believe in Jesus. Some Muslims say Christians will go to hell because belief that Jesus is God logically requires more than one God.
Regarding Muslims going to hell: I am a Christian, and I do not believe that. However, I do believe that salvation is ultimately placing complete and absolute trust in a good and loving God, and entering into a personal and passionate loving relationship with God! I base this belief on a personal encounter with Christ. Having had this experience, I also see Christ in other people, including Muslims. So, from my point of view, if you are trusting God when you say you submit to Allah, you're walking in the right direction. If you say you have a deep personal relationship with him, your getting even closer. If you're passionately in love with God -- you're there! You're following the greatest commandment, and the second will follow! Though it goes beyond my reason to understand how you got there without knowing Christ, I'll take you at your word.
However, based on the little I know about Islam, you are appalled that I am claiming to have a personal encounter with God. Furthermore, to say that this encounter with God is in the person of Jesus Christ, I must be overly emotional, deluded, or insane. I am disobeying a forgiving God, but a God of justice who will damn me if I do not turn back. We must follow Allah in fear and submission. We trust him, but we cannot relate to him like one person to another. But if I can show that there are no logical fallacies in our articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation as monotheism, the burden of proof that I'm going to hell falls upon you!
If I am misinterpreting Islam, please let me know.
If I am interpreting Islam correctly, what Firefly and I are inviting you to do is to drop the arguments about the texts and talk about this difference in experience. Do we follow God out of ' trusting submission' with the knowledge of punishment as an additional motivation, OR do we follow God because we are in a passionate love affair with him, and hell would be to be separated form the one we love so dearly!
Dear jcecil:
I want to draw your attention to the rules of IWC found under Help link.
We don't tolerate disrespect towards the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions. If you have to mention them you cannot use terms like "buddies", or compare Qur'an with Mein Kampf or any other man written books. I am ready to believe that you didn't do it on purpose. Perhaps...! Please be warned that you have to measure the words before you write as your messages will be removed.
Please edit your message forthwith or we'll remove it within next few hours without any warning.
Tayeb
Admin of IWC
LAST EDITED ON 18-10-01 AT 02:29 PM (GMT)[p]
>Dear jcecil:
>
>I want to draw your attention
>to the rules of IWC
>found under Help link.
>
>We don't tolerate disrespect towards the
>Prophet Muhammad and his Companions.
>If you have to mention
>them you cannot use terms
>like "buddies", or compare Qur'an
>with Mein Kampf or any
>other man written books. I
>am ready to believe that
>you didn't do it on
>purpose. Perhaps...! Please be warned
>that you have to measure
>the words before you write
>as your messages will be
>removed.
>
>Please edit your message forthwith or
>we'll remove it within next
>few hours without any warning.
>
>
>Tayeb
>Admin of IWC
Tayeb -- I sincerely apologize that I was not careful enough in my choice of words. It certainly was not my intent to state anything that could be interpreted as meaning that the Qur'an and Mein Kampf contain similar content or style. That would be a false statement that I do not adhere to. The only question I was intending to ask is whether we can all agree that a internally consistent text is not determined to be inspired by Allah solely by the test internal consistenty. My question in no way is meant to attack the Qur'an itself. Rather, my intent is to understand the internal consistency argument, which is separate from the text of the Qur'an itself. In phrasing the question, I assumed that Muslims agree that Hitler was an evil man. However, since that is not how you interpreted the question, and my question can be asked another way, I have removed the reference as you requested. I also changed the word "buddies" to "court", which I hope is more acceptable. Again, I apologize for the poor choice of words that was obviously misunderstood.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Dear Joseph:
Your explanation and apologies are accepted. You have followed a thread that actually should have been locked, as it has exhausted itself and has become too long. You have posted 5 months after the last message was written. Br Ibrahim the Moderator of the Forum should have done the locking of the thread.
On the consistency matter of the Holy Qur'an, I'd like to disagree with you when you say it isn't important. In fact, it's very important because if a book is the Word of Allah (God in Arabic, with particularty of not having plural nor gender) then consistency is important. The Holy Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years and contains 114 chapters (Surahs) and over 6000 verses. Only these figures are enough to think about.
Tayeb
Admin
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.