The corruption of the Bible
Robert Houghton
Testament and New Testament, on all hands, and it usually stops discussion
and communication between Muslims on the one hand, and Christians and Jews
on the other. The Muslim position is no position at all; it is merely a
desperate defensive ploy, because they produce no tangible evidence: it is
merely an unreasoned determination to reject the Bible documents.
It is the normal practice among historians to assume the GENERAL
reliability of the statements in their sources, whether they are
inscriptions or written documents, unless there is good explicit evidence to
the contrary. Unreliability, the dishonesty or tendentiousness of the writer
must be clearly proved with tangible evidence; they must not be assumed
merely to prove a theory or maintain a dogma. This Muslims fail to do.
The unsupported Muslim claim is not rooted in the Koran; quite the reverse.
Koran (40:42) presupposes that the Torah was available to the Jews in
Muhammad's day (note the perfect tense) and uncorrupted:
"Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, ... And
believe in that I have sent down..."
The authority of the Bible is acknowledged in (10:94):
"So, if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask
those who recite the Book before thee..."
Further Koran (6:34) states that the Word of God cannot be corrupted: "No
man can change the words of God."
Unsurprisingly the charge of corruption was late in being leveled. The first
to make it was Ibn-Khazem in 1064. Again he produced no factual evidence,
merely asserting that the Koran was true, the Bible inconsistent with the
Koran, therefore the Bible was false.
There is a sizeable list of eminent Muslim scholars who did not believe in
the corruption of the Bible: al-Tabari, Bukhari, Bin Sina, Ghazzali, and Ibn
Khaldun.
Joubin Houshyar
I found this to be relevant to your post.:
-- begin --
"ISHMAEL OR ISAAC?
A controversy has raged between the people of the Bible and the House
of Islam as to which of the sons of Abraham (pbuh), Ishmael or Isaac
was offered as a sacrifice.
The Bible is quite clear in designating the offering:
"And he (God Almighty) said, take now thy son, THINE ONLY SON . . .,
whom thou lovest, and et thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him
there for a burnt offering . . ." Genesis 22:2.
If at anytime, an offspring of Abraham (pbuh) can be described as
"thine only son: it could only be Ishmael, because for more than
thirteen years, he was the only son and seed of Abraham. God Almighty
acknowledges Ishmael as the "son and seed" of Abraham in no less than
twelve places in the Book of Genesis alone. At no time was Isaac the
only son and seed of Abraham!
The false pen of the scribe was in the hand of the Jews who edited the
Books of Moses (pbuh), as the prophet Jeremiah bewails:
"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law (the Torah) of the Lord is
with us? Lo, certainly in VAIN made he it; the PEN OF THE SCRIBE IS IN
VAIN." Jeremiah 8:8
When the Jews are found to convert an Israelite into an Ishmaelite
when no motives are involved, then how much easier for them to change
the word "you only son Ishmael" to : your only son Isaac!"
Confirm the Jewish sickness in your Bible:
"Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite . . . " 2
Samuel 17:25
Contradicted by ". . . and the father of Amasa was Jether ([s]ame as
Ithra) the Ishmaelite." 1 Chronicles 2:17
-- End --
[Source: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3280]
There is no changing "the Word" of God. That which the scribe
transcribes (K.T.B) is distinct from that which The Pen of GOD Records
(S.T.R). [cf. Sura The PEN. cf. Dara's post on Serialization.]
If an errant, evil minded (or perhaps ignorant)), "scribe" writes in a
book (k.t.b) a 'distorted' 'recording' of 'The Original' (Moses
spoke ..), that is no way "changes" the "Word" of GOD!
Truth Prevails, Robert.
~!~ ~!~ ~!~
In Name of
ALLAH
Ar'Rahman
Ar'Raheem
...
ALLAH IS
HE
Besides Whom there is _none_ worthy of worship
The Living,
The Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining
HE
HAS Sent down to thee
*** The Book *** ['The Original' ...]
Containing
!!! The Truth !!!
and Fulfilling
!!! that which precedes it !!!
And HE
HAS Sent down
*** the Torah *** &
*** the Gospel ***
before
*** This ***
as
!!! A Guidance !!!
to the people
And HE
HAS Sent Down
*** the Discrimination ***
~M~ ~M~ ~M~
The Glorious Pure and Holy Al-Qur'an Surah 3 Signs 3-4
So Salaam Be Upon Moses, Mariam, and Mohammad!
Salaam Be Upon All The Angels. And Salaam Be Upon Michael and Gabriel.
Be Grateful to the LORD for HIS Mercy in Sending The Ummi Prophet, o
ye Sentient
Be ye Grateful for the Incomparable Al-Qur'an, all ye Worlds
And Praise and Glory Be to The-GOD, AR'RAHMAN,
The LORD of Majesty and Mercy !
The Eternal Al HAQ
HIS Rule The Rule of Mercy
HIS Love The Steadfast Love
And The Blessings of ALLAH Be Upon Mohammad, his house and progeny his
pure and good, and his companions,
And Salaam!
http://www.iranchamber.com/cities/mashhad/images/imam_reza.jpg
A Hirsi
> One comes across the Muslim charge that the Bible has been corrupted, Old
> Testament and New Testament, on all hands, and it usually stops discussion
> and communication between Muslims on the one hand, and Christians and Jews
> on the other. The Muslim position is no position at all; it is merely a
> desperate defensive ploy, because they produce no tangible evidence: it is
> merely an unreasoned determination to reject the Bible documents.
>
The Muslims have no reason to be defensive or offensive about the
Bible. They have the Quran instead
which has abrogated the Bible.
"And whoever seeks a religion other than islam, it will never be
accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."
Holy Quran 3:85
"O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews and christians)!
Believe in what We have revealed (to Muhammad SAW) confirming what is
(already) with you, before We efface faces (by making them like the
back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes, etc.) and turn them
hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbathbreakers. And the
Commandment of Allah is always executed. " Holy Quran 4:47
"O you who believe! If you obey a group of those who were given the
Scripture (Jews and christians), they would (indeed) render you
disbelievers after you have believed! " Holy Quran 3:100
"A party of the people of the Scripture (Jews and christians) wish to
lead you astray. But they shall not lead astray anyone except
themselves, and they perceive not. " Holy Quran 3:69
> It is the normal practice among historians to assume the GENERAL
> reliability of the statements in their sources, whether they are
> inscriptions or written documents, unless there is good explicit evidence to
> the contrary. Unreliability, the dishonesty or tendentiousness of the writer
> must be clearly proved with tangible evidence; they must not be assumed
> merely to prove a theory or maintain a dogma. This Muslims fail to do.
>
Is there a more clearer injunction for the Muslims to follow than the
following?
"And whoever seeks a religion other than islam, it will never be
accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."
Holy Quran 3:85
We do not regard the Quran as a historical document or believe
historians can add or take anything away from Allah's final and
majestic book for eternity.
> The unsupported Muslim claim is not rooted in the Koran; quite the reverse.
> Koran (40:42) presupposes that the Torah was available to the Jews in
> Muhammad's day (note the perfect tense) and uncorrupted:
>
> "Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, ... And
> believe in that I have sent down..."
>
> The authority of the Bible is acknowledged in (10:94):
>
> "So, if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask
> those who recite the Book before thee..."
Muslims as you might not be aware accept all the Prophets and
Messengers Allah sent to the generations
before us. Infact the six pillars of faith includes believing in
Allah's books (The Taurat,Injil,Zabur and Furqan)
"Truly, the religion with Allah is islam. Those who were given the
Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual
jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in
the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of
Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account."
Holy Quran 3:19
"Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O people of the Scripture (Jews and
christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we
worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him,
and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if
they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims." Holy Quran
3:64
> Further Koran (6:34) states that the Word of God cannot be corrupted: "No
> man can change the words of God."
>
Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and
surely, We will guard it (from corruption). Holy Quran 15:9
Verily, those who disbelieved in the Reminder (i.e. the Quran) when it
came to them (shall receive the punishment). And verily, it is an
honourable respected Book (because it is Allahs Speech, and He has
protected it from corruption, etc.). Holy Quran 41:41
> Unsurprisingly the charge of corruption was late in being leveled. The first
> to make it was Ibn-Khazem in 1064. Again he produced no factual evidence,
> merely asserting that the Koran was true, the Bible inconsistent with the
> Koran, therefore the Bible was false.
>
Are you suggesting the eminent Muslims missed the following verses?
"O people of the Scripture (Jews and christians): "Why do you mix
truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?" " Holy
Quran 3:71
"Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and christians) recognise
him (Muhammad SAW or the Kabah at Makkah) as they recongise their
sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it
- (i.e. the qualities of Muhammad SAW which are written in the Taurat
(Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)). "
Holy Quran 2:146
"And even if you were to bring to the people of the Scripture (Jews
and christians) all the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons,
signs, revelations, etc.), they would not follow your Qiblah (prayer
direction), nor are you going to follow their Qiblah (prayer
direction). And they will not follow each others Qiblah (prayer
direction). Verily, if you follow their desires after that which you
have received of knowledge (from Allah), then indeed you will be one
of the Zalimoon (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.). " Holy Quran 2:145
"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O
Muhammad Peace be upon him ) till you follow their religion. Say:
"Verily, the Guidance of Allah (i.e. islamic Monotheism) that is the
(only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) were to
follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have
received of Knowledge (i.e. the Quran), then you would have against
Allah neither any Walee (protector or guardian) nor any helper. "
Holy Quran 2:120
> There is a sizeable list of eminent Muslim scholars who did not believe in
> the corruption of the Bible: al-Tabari, Bukhari, Bin Sina, Ghazzali, and Ibn
> Khaldun.
Where is your proof?
"(And remember) when Allah took a covenant from those who were given
the Scripture (Jews and christians) to make it (the news of the coming
of Prophet Muhammad SAW and the religious knowledge) known and clear
to mankind, and not to hide it, but they threw it away behind their
backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And indeed worst is
that which they bought. " Holy Quran 3:187
"And they say, "Be Jews or christians, then you will be guided." Say
(to them, O Muhammad Peace be upon him ), "Nay, (We follow) only the
religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), Hanifa (Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to
worship none but Allah (Alone)), and he was not of Al-Mushrikoon "
Holy Quran 2:135
"And they (Jews, christians and pagans) say: Allah has begotten a son
(children or offspring). Glory be to Him (Exalted be He above all that
they associate with Him). Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the
heavens and on earth, and all surrender with obedience (in worship) to
Him. " Holy Quran 2:116
"The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way)
of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who
went astray (such as the christians). " Holy Quran 1:7
"Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and christians) wish that
if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed,
out of envy from their ownselves, even, after the truth (that Muhammad
Peace be upon him is Allahs Messenger) has become manifest unto them.
But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His Command. Verily, Allah
is Able to do all things." Holy Quran 2:109
"The Jews said that the christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the
right religion); and the christians said that the Jews follow nothing
(i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the
Scripture. Like unto their word, said (the pagans) who know not. Allah
will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein
they have been differing. " Holy Quran 2:113
For the sake of not copying the whole Quran here I will let you read
the Quran and find the truth for yourself.
I thank you for your relatively polite post and I promise to be
equally cordial so that we can discuss Islam
objectively without calling each other names or maligning each other's
beliefs.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health. (Courtesy of
Brother Alothman)
A Hirsi
"And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and
christians), but must believe in him (Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam
(Mary), as only a Messenger of Allah and a human being), before his
(Iesa (Jesus) or a Jews or a christians) death (at the time of the
appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he
(Iesa (Jesus)) will be a witness against them. " Holy Quran 4:159
Hajj Abujamal
Robert Houghton wrote, at soc.religion.islam,
Another exegesis showing his preparation and expertise for
insinuating doubt into the minds of muslims and seekers of truth, this
one serializing several elements of The Lie as it is known in Temple
Israel and Pauline Christianity.
This is relevant to Islam because the Qur'an states unequivocally
that Rasulullah Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi was-sallam is found in the
Hebrew Scripture. Robert denies this, seeking to cast doubt on the
Qur'an.
> To us there is an anomaly in the text of Genesis: Ishmael was the
> first born and still alive when God instructed Abraham to sacrifice
> his only son.
This is not an anomaly to muslims. At the time, Isma'il 'alaihi
as-salaam was the only son of Ibrahim 'alaihi as-salaam. The Covenant
had not been established, circumcision ~ the Sign of the Covenant ~
had not been instituted, and Ishaq 'alaihi as-salaam had not been
announced, let alone conceived or born. By the time Ishaq had been
born, the Covenant had been established in direct consequence of
Ibrahim's sacrifice ~ in Isma'il, as Ibrahim's only son and heir.
This is what muslims believe and rely on, what the Scripture, the
Qur'an, and history support, and neither you nor the Israelis of
Temple Israel will ever be able to persuade us otherwise.
Even the Lodge, during their heyday as the Roman Empire,
recognized and acknowledged the Covenant of Circumcision among the
children of Isma'il. Even today, in the Greek Letter Fraternities and
Sororities, the muslims are known as among those of the Covenant of
Abraham, the Covenant of Circumcision. It was established before
Ishaq was even a twinkle in Ibrahim's eye, and they all know that.
So did the Children of Israel in Jesus' time.
You followers of Paul, enslaved by Temple Israel, are the only
people who are deceived about this.
> Abraham understood God to mean Isaac.
This is what the Israelis would have you believe. But at the
time, Ibrahim had no inkling of Ishaq.
What you have, and all you have, is the story told by the leaders
of Temple Israel ~ after Solomon ~ and perpetuated by Pauline
Christianity.
What everyone else has is the annual commemmoration of Ibrahim's
sacrifice of Isma'il, recounted every year ~ including this year and
last year ~ by the descendants of Isma'il and countless others. We
also have the history of Ibrahim spending six months with Sarah and
Ishaq in the north, and six months with Hajar and Isma'il in the
south, every year for the rest of his life after taking the latter to
what became Kedar (and eventually Makkah) south of the Paran
mountains, at the end of which Isma'il and Ishaq ~ together ~ buried him.
> "... Or else the wife might produce an heir by proxy (so
> to speak). Thus was Ishmael born to Abraham by Hagar (Gn 16)."
This is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that Hajjar was
Ibrahim's wife. The Bible goes on to mention Ibrahim's third wife,
Keturah. Isma'il was not anyone's son or heir "by proxy," he was
God's reply to Ibrahim's prayer for a son and heir from his own loins.
> You see, once Isaac was born, although Abraham loved Ishmael,
> he didn't count any more: Isaac became the only son.
This is directly contradicted by Scripture, which shows that
Isma'il and Ishaq buried Ibrahim. Further, although it certainly has
been "forgotten" by Temple Israel, Ibrahim spent thirteen years or
more with Isma'il (before Ishaq was born) and then half of the rest of
his life with Isma'il south of Paran. Ishaq most certainly did NOT
become his "only" son, ever.
You see, we muslims search for religious knowledge even if it may
be in China, while you are limited to the polemics and speculations
and irrational theories of Pauline Christianity which were first
written in Temple Israel. We know about Solomon's son Menelik by
Bilqis, Queen of Saba' and Ethiopia, we know about Negus Najjashi in
Ethiopia in the time of Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi was-salaam, we
know about the Ten Persecutions under the first ten Roman emperors
before Constantine and the persecution by the Holy Roman Empire and
the trinitarian bishops of the Torah-faithful followers of Jesus
'alaihi as-salaam for three centuries after that. We know what Paul
did and who he is in your own Scripture, because the rabbinical
"Noahides" have trumpeted it in their denunciations of Jesus.
You are mired in the writings that lead to a "religion" where men
become "as gods" by some mystery symbolic cannibalism and irrational
hocus-pocus that would make "only son" mean something completely
opposite. Reason does not permit that, no matter how extensively some
people would like to "rationalize" utter contradiction.
> As regards Jeremiah (8:8) the Revised Standard Version offers a
> clearer and more authoritative translation than yours:
> "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'?
> But behold the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."
The Revised Standard Version fails to notice that there is a
definite article prefixed to the word translated "lie," making it
"Surely the false pen of the scribes has made into The Lie."
The Lie being that salvation ~ the Messenger of the Covenant, who
brings the means for self-salvation in the form of a new Law for all
humanity and jinn ~ comes in Israel rather than in Isma'il.
Fortunately for us, we have that faith ~ al-Islam ~ that was delivered
in Arabia exactly and precisely in every detail as it is set forth and
prophesied in your Scripture, and exactly and precisely as Jesus told
about it.
> There is no suggestion that the WHOLE tradition of the Law has
> been lost through corruption and transmitted to posterity.
God's Word ~ The Law ~ is a singularity. It contains no error, no
contradiction, no omission, no deviation, and no falsity. Nothing
said by Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, or by any of the prophets of
Israel, or by Muhammad, is inconsistent with anything else in all of
it. What the scribes of Israel did, with the Scriptures of which they
had sole, exclusive, and hidden custody, is another thing entirely.
> The idea that scribes conspired to corrupt the Scriptures by
> replacing "Ishmael" by "Isaac" in the late seventh century is
> unreal. The practical problems render the idea ridiculous: to
> collect in all the scrolls of Genesis and replace them with
> tampered-with versions! Who would co-operate? It would be
> universally known that the Word of God - the basis of Israel's
> Covenant - had been deliberately corrupted. And what would be
> the motive?
You appear not to know the history at all. Here is some of it:
Until the time of Solomon 'alaihi as-salaam, there was one scroll,
or set of scrolls, comprising the Law. It was a transcription of
the 4,444 words that God spoke directly to Moses. There was one copy,
the original, and it did not deteriorate. It resided in the side of
the Ark of the Covenant and was seen only by the priests of the tribe
of Levi. No one else could even look at it. The priests recited it
to the congregations of Israel, who were required to memorize it. No
one was allowed to recite it in the presence of anyone who was not of
Israel. The penalty for disclosing any of it to anyone of the goyim
was stoning.
Solomon the king-prophet deposed the Levites of this exclusive
privilege (custody of the Scripture) and took the Ark of the Covenant
away from them. It never again appears in Scripture. Shortly after
his death, the Jews were taken into the Babylonian Captivity, and it
became a capital crime to speak a word of Hebrew or to possess any
scrap of anything written in Hebrew.
Ezra was sent back to Jerusalem and after that, the rabbis
reconstructed Hebrew, which had been a lost language, and wrote what
they remembered in another language as they wished to remember it.
This is what you have today, as Jeremiah tells you, from the lying
pens of the scribes.
It is not the Word of God. It is not His Law that He gave only
and exclusively to the Children of Israel, which had never been
disclosed to anyone outside of Israel, and which had been obliterated
in Babylon even to the complete eradication of the Hebrew tongue over
the space of three or four generations.
It is as ALLAH describes in the Qur'an, they "changed words from
their places" and "twisted their tongues with The Book." It has been
rewritten, between the time of Solomon and the time of Jesus, to
divest both Isma'il and all of humanity of their inheritance in
Abraham, and reserve it all exclusively to Temple Israel, in addition
to that actual heritage in Abraham that is exclusively Israel's.
It did not take any vast "conspiracy." It was not something that
would be "universally known" because only the priests of Levi had ever
seen the Scripture, and those who had memorized it were forbidden,
under pain of a gruesome death, to speak any of it in Babylon. Only
the priests and rabbis knew it, in another language than Hebrew. When
they re-wrote it, they wrote what they desired of what they remembered
and what they desired that it say.
> As a Muslim, and as usual, you are unable to grasp that Christians
> do not conceive of Scripture in the way Muslims regard the Koran:
> the verbatim words of God himself, and therefore perfect in every
> particular.
Some of the things you write are purely ludicrous. This is one of
them.
Christians AND Jews acknowledge that their Scriptures are not the
Word of God, and most Christian scholars and many Jewish scholars
acknowledge that there have been alterations. There is little
disagreement in the worlds of Scripture that Scripture is the writings
of men, purportedly "inspired," and not the words of God.
However, what was originally given to the Children of Israel
through Moses 'alaihi as-salaam, was 4,444 words that God spoke
directly to Moses, verbatim. It is this Revelation that we muslims
believe, some portions of which still appear to exist in Scripture as
it has been received ~ in Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic, and Arabic ~ today.
Muslims know that Christians do not regard Scripture in the way
that we regard the Qur'an, as the literal and verbatim Word of God.
We know that all they have is a distant shadow of what was Revealed to
the prophets 'alaihim as-salaam, corrupted by the lying pens of the
scribes, translated through several non-Semitic tongues, and delivered
up with canned "interpretations" that run completely contrary to
reason. Why would we think that Christians imagine Scripture to be
the actual Word of God?
We don't.
> Again your approach to the Bible is impossibly superficial: a matter
> of extracting snippets to use, out of context, as knock-down
> arguments against Christianity. Perhaps one day Muslims will begin
> to study Scripture, as a whole, against the background of Biblical
> history, and not in terms of Islamic preconceptions.
Many of us are thoroughly familiar with Scripture as a whole,
partly from having been raised with it, both against the background of
Biblical history AND the surrounding history AND the subsequent
history of the coming of the Messenger of the Covenant mentioned at
Malachi 3:1, the inauguration of the Kingdom of God at his hand, the
Revelation of the Endless Covenant for all humanity mentioned
throughout Scripture, the utter transformation of the Promised Land
prophesied in Scripture, and the perpetual attempts of Temple Israel
to deceive the nations and keep the heritage of Ibrahim all to themselves.
Why you cannot seem to recognize that here in this forum you are
faced with people who know how shallow your approach has been is the
real mystery. Either that, or you just here with an agenda to
attempt, among other things, to spread doubt about the Qur'an.
You are really wasting your time. You should look at Scripture as
a whole, with the background of the entire history of the family of
Abraham and the rest of humanity (the nations), including what
happened in the Promised Land six centuries after Jesus. The time is
at hand ~ you're missing the boat.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Robert Houghton
A further reply to Houshyar Feb 10
I was intrigued to access your link to the learned "imamreza": it is a
perfect example of the futility of Islamic scholarship regarding the Bible.
It is pure Ahmed Deedat. Who cribbed from whom? We have the ridiculous fuss
over the fact that the word "bastard" occurs three times in the Old
Testament, and Imam Reza resorts to the King James Authorized version in
order to find the scandal of the word "shit", not realizing that in early
17th century England this was normal usage, "excrement" then being an exotic
Latinism which many would not understand. Once again there is the complete
failure to see that the Bible is a complex collection of ancient documents,
by different authors, and in different literary forms; that it is not meant
to be read as the words of God verbatim, but rather the traditions and
communications made in different cultural circumstances by men who were
nevertheless inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not as automatons,
transcribing machines - they were inspired as MEN, not just mouthpieces. In
this the Bible is utterly different from what the Koran is alleged to be.
Imam Reza is utterly ignorant of the scholarship he needs to acquire if he
is to understand the Bible, and he transmits his ignorance, with apparent
authority, to other Muslims.
You ignore my quotation of Koran (40:42), the injunction addressed to the
Jews "And believe in that I have sent down...", referring to the Torah. This
presupposes that the Torah was available and trustworthy.
Similarly you ignore the confirmation that (10:94) offers of the authority
of the Torah and the Gospels: "...if thou art in doubt regarding what We
have sent down to thee, ask those who recite the Book before thee..."
Your commentary on (6:34) "No man can change the words of God" is obscure.
It would be a futile remark if "the words of God" referred to what "the Pen
of God" records (your explanation)in some transcendental fashion. In context
it is clear that the words of God are those transmitted by the Messenger.
The meaning of the verse must be that God's Revelation cannot be expunged.
zev_...@yahoo.com
news:1171062128.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> The Bible is quite clear in designating the offering:
> "And he (God Almighty) said, take now thy son, THINE ONLY SON . . .,
> whom thou lovest, and et thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him
> there for a burnt offering . . ." Genesis 22:2.
There's a word left out here!
Did you buy your Bible from a scribe with a false pen?
> If at anytime, an offspring of Abraham (pbuh) can be described as
> "thine only son: it could only be Ishmael, because for more than
> thirteen years, he was the only son and seed of Abraham. God Almighty
> acknowledges Ishmael as the "son and seed" of Abraham in no less than
> twelve places in the Book of Genesis alone. At no time was Isaac the
> only son and seed of Abraham!
It's a pity you didn't take part in the "ISHMAEL OR ISAAC? thread.
You would have understood the "only" problem,
and you wouldn't have brought it up,
unless you're more 'stiff-necked' than your adversaries ;-)
I looked for Biblical references to Ishmael as the "seed" of Abraham.
I found only one, Genesis 21:13,
but there it seems like some kind of consolation prize,
contrasted to Genesis 21:12.
Did you read Genesis 21:12?
Don't you get the feeling, from these juxtaposed verses,
that there is seed, and then, there is seed?
What did you find in "twelve places in the Book of Genesis alone"?
Joubin, keep this up, and I'll be putting "Oh Veh Joubin" in my posts.
> The false pen of the scribe was in the hand of the Jews who edited the
> Books of Moses (pbuh), as the prophet Jeremiah bewails:
> "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law (the Torah) of the Lord is
> with us? Lo, certainly in VAIN made he it; the PEN OF THE SCRIBE IS IN
> VAIN." Jeremiah 8:8
> When the Jews are found to convert an Israelite into an Ishmaelite
> when no motives are involved, then how much easier for them to change
> the word "you only son Ishmael" to : your only son Isaac!"
> Confirm the Jewish sickness in your Bible:
> "Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite . . . " 2
> Samuel 17:25
> Contradicted by ". . . and the father of Amasa was Jether ([s]ame as
> Ithra) the Ishmaelite." 1 Chronicles 2:17
It may be that:
1) Jether lived in Ishmael-land (Rashi).
2) Since 'Ishmael' in the Bible never refers to a people
of that name but rather to a life style, it may be that here,
also,it means "Jether, who lived like an Ishmaelite.
(even though he was an Israelite, living amongst his own people)".
3) Given the many known difficulties in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles,
you could assume 1 Chronicles 2:17
is just one more mistake, couldn't you?
BTW, before you get excited about
the possibility of mistakes in the Bible
you should know that there are answers
for each apparent contradiction,
it is the large number found in the above mentioned books
that may lead one to the conclusion that here,
a different explanation is required.
In that sense, the Quran finds itself in the same situation.
Zev
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c74ba3$54c3f7b0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
(Reposted)
<snip> ...
> One comes across the Muslim charge that the Bible has been corrupted, Old
> Testament and New Testament, on all hands, and it usually stops discussion
> and communication between Muslims on the one hand, and Christians and Jews
> on the other. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are the so-called Muslim charges that you say you have come across not based
on a notional Bible that possibly existed at the advent of Islam? Was there
a single 'canonical' Bible that early Muslims (or early Christians or Jews)
could have referenced at that particular time and place, in say, Mecca or
Medina? Is there any evidence, in a single comprehensive manuscript form,
that such a 'canonical' compilation ever existed in seventh century
Byzantium and that it was universally accepted by all the Churches then in
existence? What are the "People of the Book", in these Qur'anic
circumstances, when there is no single historical book that can be
rationally identified as being the right one, back then and there?
Which raises the question: Which particular Bible are you talking about? You
keep on referencing the Bible as though there was just one Bible that was
universally and historically recognised amongst all early Christian
denominations. This is nonsense and utterly false.
If "corrupted" means, "alter from the original", can you produce the
"original" canonical Bible, as a single source document at the advent of
Islam? You keep on citing the "Revised Standard Version" (RSV) of the Bible,
as the de facto standard to Muslims, but that version only came into
existence in 1946. Or are you using the "Revised Standard Version - Catholic
Edition" (RSV-CE), first published in 1966, to compare against the unchanged
seventh century Qur'an? Isn't there a "corruption" between these two modern
"Revised" versions of the Bible, otherwise why the need for the two separate
versions? Which is the 'original' in this case? Is it any wonder that
Muslims are confused when Christians and Jews have no universal consensus
amongst themselves over what constitutes the "original" Bible?
Isn't it tantamount to saying that Protestants would accept the Catholic, or
Catholics accept Orthodox, 'apocrypha', 'pseudepigrapha', 'pseudepigrapha
decretals' (false) and 'pseudonymity', in their versions of the Bible as not
being a 'corruption' of each of their own respective canonical Bibles. Do
the Jews accept the 'corrupted' (i.e. alter from the original) New Testament
section of Bible? Which of all these many biblical variants is being used
for comparative purposes against the Qur'an?
This Muslim view has all been taught to you before, see this linked
transcript:-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/bbf723f8ba7b58e7
Extract:-
But let's compare the sanctioned Qur'an and the Bible by looking at the
chronological date they were actually canonised. Wouldn't that be a fairer
comparison? See this link for details:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Extract:-
Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily
decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed
very slowly over many centuries. This is not to say that formal councils and
declarations were not involved, however. Some of these include the Council
of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16
abstain), the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of
Jerusalem of 1672 for Greek Orthodoxy.
According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the Canon of the New
Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament
existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation
in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the
result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with
doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain
obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term
until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [Council of Trent]."
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity,
there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally
recognized. ...
So doesn't this prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there wasn't any
single book that could be deemed the authorised Bible at the advent of
Islam? How could any "Christian scholars" then make any rational comparison
that is being artfully suggested in this thread? What about all the
unsettled 'apocrypha', 'Pseudepigrapha', 'Pseudepigrapha Decretals' (false)
and 'Pseudonymity' articles(written by all those 'scholarly Byzantine
Greek/Syriac speaking monks in this formative period and beyond)? Why has
this deep lacunae been left out of your comparative analysis between the
Qur'an and the subsequently canonical Bible?
Aren't you endeavouring to make a backward projection to justify and
rationalise the canonical Bible with the much earlier canonical Qur'an?
End extract.
You have not managed to rebut this "corrupted" argument about the notional
canonical Bible that supposedly existed at the advent of Islam. Can you
identify this canonical Bible that was universally accepted by all Christian
denominations at the advent of Islam? If such a identifiable manuscript does
not exist in fact, what Bible are you comparing against what is written in
the Qur'an? For example, is it the 'corrupted' Peshitta Bible?
<snip> ...
> The Muslim position is no position at all; it is merely a
> desperate defensive ploy, because they produce no tangible evidence: it is
> merely an unreasoned determination to reject the Bible documents.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If the Muslim position is so weak then why can't you easily rebut it? Let's
look at your earlier attempt to rebut the linked argument mentioned above:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/e532e4f02d357455
Extract:-
If you are interested to know about the Christian writers who registered the
Arab incursions in the seventh century you will find discussions of them in
the work of Patricia Crone.
Your misconceived comments on the New Testament are a fallacious distraction
from my assertion of the lack of early evidence for the Koran.
End extract.
Does this blustering folderol in any way rebut the earlier argument? Or is
your response, as you say "is no position at all; it is merely a desperate
defensive ploy, because they produce no tangible evidence: it is merely an
unreasoned determination to reject", the Muslim position?
<snip> ...
> It is the normal practice among historians to assume the GENERAL
> reliability of the statements in their sources, whether they are
> inscriptions or written documents, unless there is good explicit evidence
> to
> the contrary. Unreliability, the dishonesty or tendentiousness of the
> writer
> must be clearly proved with tangible evidence; they must not be assumed
> merely to prove a theory or maintain a dogma. This Muslims fail to do.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What would you know about the "normal practice"? Are you a historian? You
obviously haven't read any of the literature on this subject, like, for
instance, "What is history", by E. H. Carr, the standard work is this area,
otherwise you wouldn't make such any such pretentious assumption.
<snip> ...
> The unsupported Muslim claim is not rooted in the Koran; quite the
> reverse.
> Koran (40:42) presupposes that the Torah was available to the Jews in
> Muhammad's day (note the perfect tense) and uncorrupted:
<snip> ...
Comment:-
The "unsupported" and "presupposes" haven't been demonstrated by yourself,
under your earlier so-called "normal practice" criteria. Tell us how an
Arabic source document can be comparatively evaluated using English grammar
and syntax as the linguistic benchmark?
Isn't this another blustering example of the "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc"
fallacy? As you said above a "fallacious distraction"?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
zev_...@yahoo.com
news:1171062128.6...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> "thine only son: it could only be Ishmael, because for more than
> thirteen years, he was the only son and seed of Abraham. God Almighty
> acknowledges Ishmael as the "son and seed" of Abraham in no less than
> twelve places in the Book of Genesis alone. At no time was Isaac the
> only son and seed of Abraham!
Since posting my last message in this last thread,
I came across the following verses in the Quran
(I don't know who the translator is).
11.45: And Nuh cried out to his Lord and said: My Lord!
surely my son is of my family, and Thy promise is surely true,
and Thou art the most just of the judges.
11.46: He said: O Nuh! surely he is not of your family;
surely he is (the doer of) other than good deeds,
therefore ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge;
surely I admonish you lest you may be of the ignorant.
So the principle seen in the contrast in verses Genesis 21:12-13
seen again in the modern scholarship of K. A. Kitchen,
can be seen even in the Quran itself!
> The false pen of the scribe was in the hand of the Jews who edited the
> Books of Moses (pbuh), as the prophet Jeremiah bewails:
> "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law (the Torah) of the Lord is
> with us? Lo, certainly in VAIN made he it; the PEN OF THE SCRIBE IS IN
> VAIN." Jeremiah 8:8
The sycophant 'prophets' who surrounded the king,
telling him and the people what they wanted to hear,
argued the following:
1) God would never allow *His* city (Jerusalem)
to fall to the pagan Babylonians.
2) In contrast to the 10 lost tribes which had disappeared
over 100 years before,
the people of Judea and Benjamin had not sunk to total idol worship
and held the Torah in high regard,
even if they didn't always obey its laws.
If they were to go into exile, the Torah and with it the traditions
and lessons of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc.
along with whatever God was planning to build through Israel,
would all be lost.
Their message was that God *couldn't* let it happen,
and Jeremiah said that it *would* happen.
More than once, Jeremiah was almost killed for
"harming the morale of the people in time of crisis".
Jeremiah 8:8 refers to the scribes who worked with
the 'false prophets' who were cooperating with the King,
and 'published' their lies.
The 'prophets', of course, didn't spend their time
fumbling with paper, ink, and quills,
they had scribes for that.
Proper understanding of Jeremiah 8:8 is trivial.
Jeremiah is telling them that it is not true
that they can depend on their 'Torah'.
The Jerusalem bit is mentioned elsewhere.
Zev
Robert
Your posting is a perfect demonstration of the bias of the
moderator(s) in favour of Muslims and against Christians: it is
entirely devoted to an account of the Bible; as such it offends
against the alleged moderators' rules and should not have been
published, on the grounds that it is not relevant to the Islamic
faith. On the other hand, as I expected and anticipated, my response
to your points WAS suppressed - no reason given - but presumably
because it was judged to be irrelevant to Islam, even though it
corrected common Muslim misconceptions. What is worse, you issued
challenges: for me to identify a "single 'canonical' bible" before the
advent of Islam etc. Since my reply goes unpublished it will seem to
you and to followers of this forum that your challenge has gone unmet,
and that my silence (enforced by the moderators) implies that your
posting is unanswerable and that the Bible did not exist before the
7th century CE. Common decency and a regard for TRUTH requires that
the moderators handle matters differently and justly.
You will find my reply published on alt.religion.islam, most easily
accessed via my "profile" on sri.
Saqib Virk
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1171801954....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Your posting is a perfect demonstration of the bias of the
> moderator(s) in favour of Muslims and against Christians:
SV
Paranoid nonesense.
> You will find my reply published on alt.religion.islam, most easily
> accessed via my "profile" on sri.
SV
Those who behave such as yourself may find alt.religion.islam more to their
liking. You can post to your hearts content and be surrounded by like minded
people. I suggest you give it a try and forget complaining about imagined
bias on soc.religion.islam.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Abdalla Alothman
> The unsupported Muslim claim is not rooted in the Koran; quite the reverse.
> Koran (40:42) presupposes that the Torah was available to the Jews in
> Muhammad's day (note the perfect tense) and uncorrupted:
>
> "Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, ... And
> believe in that I have sent down..."
The aaya above is not 40:42.
40:42. "You invite me to disbelieve in Allāh (and in His Oneness),
and to join partners in worship with Him; of which I have no
knowledge,
and I invite you to the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving!
The translation of the aaya you provided obliges the Jews to believe
in what has been sent down = THE QURAN. Which means that their
book is expired. The Jews also need to believe in the two messengers
they ignore.
> The authority of the Bible is acknowledged in (10:94):
>
> "So, if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask
> those who recite the Book before thee..."
But if they (those who recite the book before thee) contradict the
Messenger (s), they are wrong. The aaya is pointing to something
else far from the Bible, because the Bible is not in harmony with
the Quran.
> Further Koran (6:34) states that the Word of God cannot be corrupted: "No
> man can change the words of God."
"Word" in this context does not apply to book that the Creator (tt)
sends to a messenger. It means ruling. Like, "I'll see you tonight,
and I give you my word on that."
The aaya is:
6:34. Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O
Muhammad SAW), but with patience they bore the denial, and
they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter
the Words (Decisions) of Allāh. Surely there has reached you
the information (news) about the Messengers (before you).
It can be linked with:
37:171. And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our
slaves, the Messengers,
37:172. That they verily would be made triumphant.
And finally, the last image for WORD in 6:34 is:
(A)
12:110. (They were reprieved) until, when the Messengers gave up
hope and thought that they were denied (by their people), then came
to them Our Help, and whomsoever We willed were delivered. And
Our Punishment cannot be warded off from the people who are Mujrimūn
(criminals, disobedients to Allāh, sinners, disbelievers,
polytheists).
(B)
2:214. Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials)
as came to those who passed away before you? They were afflicted
with severe poverty and ailments and were so shaken that even the
Messenger and those who believed along with him said, "When (will
come) the Help of Allāh?" Yes! Certainly, the Help of Allāh is near!
And that's the "WORD" in 6:34. It's neither the Bible, nor the
Quran or Harry Potter or any other book.
And here we have:
[k&h - 40:6] Thus has the Word of your Lord been justified against
those who disbelieved, that they will be the dwellers of the Fire.
[k&h - 11:119] Except him on whom your Lord has bestowed
His Mercy (the follower of truth - Islāmic Monotheism) and for
that did He create them. And the Word of your Lord has been
fulfilled (i.e. His Saying): "Surely, I shall fill Hell with jinns and
men all together."
Does "WORD" refer to the Bible? Don't you understand?
If you want to believe that the WORD of "GOD" doesn't change,
you know that this is nonsense and it is contradicted in your
new testament when THE WORD BECAME FLESH.
Now we show what is in the Quran:
[k&h - 2:75] Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe
in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish
rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allāh [the Taurāt (Torah)], then
they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?
[k&h - 4:46] Among those who are Jews, there are some who
displace words from (their) right places ....
[k&h - 5:13] ... They change the words from their (right) places ...
[k&h - 5:41] ... They change the words from their places;
The Priests and the Rabbis where the ones who were entrusted
to preserve the Message sent to them:
[k&h - 5:44] ... And the rabbis and the priests [too judged the
Jews by the Taurāt (Torah) after those Prophets] for to them
was entrusted the protection of Allāh's Book, and they were
witnesses thereto. ...
But how does Allah (tt) describe them?
[k&h - 9:34] O you who believe! Verily, there are **MANY** of
the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks who devour the
wealth of mankind in falsehood, and hinder (them) from the
Way of Allāh (i.e. Allāh's Religion of Islāmic Monotheism). And
those who hoard up gold and silver [Al-Kanz: the money, the
Zakāt of which has not been paid], and spend it not in the Way
of Allāh, -announce unto them a painful torment.
Sorry, I don't trust such people. And then we have
the following interesting report from albukhari.
SaHeeH albukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:
Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture
about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been
revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read
it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you
that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed
their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with
their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little
gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent
you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have
never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has
been revealed to you!"
So when you say that the "Muslim claim is not rooted" in the
Quran or even the Sunnah is not true, so don't make that silly
statement again.
> Unsurprisingly the charge of corruption was late in being leveled. The first
> to make it was Ibn-Khazem in 1064.
Ignorance...
> Again he produced no factual evidence,
> merely asserting that the Koran was true, the Bible inconsistent with the
> Koran, therefore the Bible was false.
Yes, Bible is false. You don't need the Quran to discover that
fact.
> There is a sizeable list of eminent Muslim scholars who did not believe in
> the corruption of the Bible: al-Tabari, Bukhari, Bin Sina, Ghazzali, and Ibn
> Khaldun.
This is all wrong. aTTabari and albukhari are report providers and
they
surely provided enough reports against the sources of the Jews and
the Christians. ibn seena is considered a baaTini by many Muslim
scholars, so his opinion on Islamic issues doesn't count. Alghazali
cursed the Jews and the Christians and attacked their sources. And
finally ibn Khaldoun stood up against the Jews and the Christians.
Abdalla Alothman
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1171801954....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Your posting is a perfect demonstration of the bias of the
> moderator(s) in favour of Muslims and against Christians: it is
> entirely devoted to an account of the Bible;
> <snip> ...
Comment:-
Didn't you originally post this thread called "The corruption of the Bible"
in an Islamic forum? Is that the bias of the much maligned moderators who
allowed such a thread to be started? If you didn't want your "Bible"
argument soundly demolished why did you post it in the first place? Was it
because you thought that Muslims couldn't adequately respond in a
knowledgeable manner or that they would be automatically restricted in their
Islamic viewpoint, concerning the "Bible" under moderator rules?
Can't you accept criticism and sound rebuttals from Muslim commentators? Do
you accept that some Muslims in this forum might have more knowledge about
Church history and formative "Bible" history than yourself?
Ask yourself, if subscribers cannot give any critical response to the hollow
assertions you have raised about the "Bible", in a Muslim context, what is
the point of this posted challenge?
Or do you want us to understand that it's simply another cynical Christian
exercise, about duplicitous Bible history, accusingly aimed at Muslims in
this forum?
--
Peace
--
For those who do not think, it is best at least to rearrange their
prejudices once in a while. [Luther Burbank]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
"What God has sent down" applies equally to the Torah and the New
Testament. You merely insist that the phrase applies exclusively to
the Koran.
"If thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask
those who recite the Book before thee..." : you say that if those who
recite the Book before thee (Christians and Jews) contradict the
Messengers they (the former) are wrong. Thus, according to you, God is
recommending that to clarify the Koran Muslims should consult Books
that are liable to FALSEHOOD.
The words of God cannot be changed; you say that "words" here does not
apply to Books sent to the Messengers. Mere assertion: arbitrary
nonsense.
Your quotations A) and B) don't relate to anything in your 'argument'.
You say "if you want to believe that the WORD of "God" doesn't change,
you know that it is nonsense and is contradicted in your new testament
when THE WORD BECAME FLESH." I am not arguing in propria persona that
the WORD OF "God" doesn't change, I am demonstrating that the KORAN
says that the words (not WORD) of God cannot be changed. You are thus
arguing against the Koran. The words "word" in the expressions "the
words of God cannot be changed" and "the Word became flesh" are not
univocal. In the first instantiation "word" has its normal sense, in
the second it refers to the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who
is eternal and unchangeable. Jesus who was God-man was changeable in
his human nature. I'm afraid you haven't got even a rudimentary grasp
of Christian doctrine.
I reported that Ibn Khazem in 1064 was the first Muslim to reject the
Bible as corrupt; characteristically you merely retort "ignorance",
giving no evidence against my assertion.
Again, demonstrating the truth of my claim that Muslims never produce
evidence for the corruption of the Bible, you merely assert it is
corrupt. Does Islam absolve you from the obligation to produce,
reason, and fact in arguing in its defence?
Again you produce no evidence that the list of distinguished Muslim
scholars who accepted the Bible is unsound.
Robert
You say that my statement that Ibn Hazem was the first to note the
discrepancies between the Bible and the Koran in 1064 and to charge
the Bible with corruption is "ignorance." Similarly you reject my list
of distinguished Muslim scholars who believed the Bible was not
corrupt. Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Hazem:
"The first known Muslim to recognize this [discrepancies] was Ibn
Hazm, vizier of Spain and writer against Christians. He concluded that
because they were in disagreement, the Bible (containing the Torah,
Zabur, and Injil) must be wrong. However, knowing that the Qur'an
states "believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what
(scripture) was revealed before thee (the Torah and the Injil)."
Qur'an Surah 4.162, he concluded, "Therefore, the present text must
have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad."
"Some scholars, such as Al Ghazzali (?-1111 CE), disagreed. Ibn Kathir
(1301-1372) wrote that the Jews did not alter the Torah, only their
interpretation of the Torah:
"The phrase "[they] displace words from (their) right places" means
that they misinterpret them and understand them in a way that God did
not intend, doing this deliberately and inventing lies against God. "
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Alothman Feb 26
>
> "What God has sent down" applies equally to the Torah and the New
> Testament. You merely insist that the phrase applies exclusively to
> the Koran.
We didn't say that it applies exclusively to the Quran, we said it
depends on the context. There are "what Allah has sent down"
that cannot apply to the tawrah; and the "New Testament" is
not mentioned in the Quran.
[k&h - 13:36] Those to whom We have given the Book (such as
'Abdullâh bin Salâm and other Jews who embraced Islâm), rejoice
at what has been REVEALED UNTO YOU (i.e. the Qur'ân), but
there are among the Confederates (from the Jews and pagans)
those who reject a part thereof. Say (O Muhammad SAW): "I am
commanded only to worship Allâh (Alone) and not to join partners
with Him. To Him (Alone) I call and to Him is my return."
In the instance above, for example, What-Allah-has-sent-down,
cannot apply to the tawrah nor the books of the Christians.
> "If thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask
> those who recite the Book before thee..." : you say that if those who
> recite the Book before thee (Christians and Jews) contradict the
> Messengers they (the former) are wrong. Thus, according to you, God is
> recommending that to clarify the Koran Muslims should consult Books
> that are liable to FALSEHOOD.
Well not all Christians agree with you. Many see the truth in the
Quran.
You are far from being a model for Christians or wise men.
> The words of God cannot be changed; you say that "words" here does not
> apply to Books sent to the Messengers. Mere assertion: arbitrary
> nonsense.
Well we gave plenty of aayat, why don;t you discuss them and show the
error. Just saying "nonsense," doesn't mean it's nonsense. It means
your
crippled. We demonstrated a few instances where "word" is not related
to any revealed message. You can't handle that, so you say "nonsense"
without having the courage to suggest an alternative. Thus, you are
the
one with the nonsense -- and most Muslims and non-Muslims in this
newsgroup know that.
> I reported that Ibn Khazem in 1064 was the first Muslim to reject the
> Bible as corrupt; characteristically you merely retort "ignorance",
> giving no evidence against my assertion.
There is nobody I know or heard of who is called Ibn Khazem.
> Again, demonstrating the truth of my claim that Muslims never produce
> evidence for the corruption of the Bible, you merely assert it is
> corrupt. Does Islam absolve you from the obligation to produce,
> reason, and fact in arguing in its defence?
Did we not provide a clear hadeeth from Bukhari?
SaHeeH albukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:
Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture
about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been
revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read
it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you
that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed
their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with
their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little
gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent
you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have
never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has
been revealed to you!"
That's evidence for us.
Why don't you go curse fig trees or order mountains to move from
their places if your faith is the size of a mustard seed as your bible
says? If you succeed you have faith and we are wrong. If not, you
either
have no faith in your religion or your book is false. Of course you
will
bend the steel to come up with an alternative interpretation, but you
should realize that we do not take your reinterpretations.
Abdalla Alothman
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> You say that my statement that Ibn Hazem was the first to note the
> discrepancies between the Bible and the Koran in 1064 and to charge
> the Bible with corruption is "ignorance."
That's your problem once again. Your target is not called ibn khazem
nor hazem. His name is ibn Hazm. So it is ignorance..
> Similarly you reject my list
> of distinguished Muslim scholars who believed the Bible was not
> corrupt. Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Hazem:
You should get his name correctly. Even the source you are copying
from gives the proper name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hazm
He's not Khazem.
> "Some scholars, such as Al Ghazzali (?-1111 CE), disagreed. Ibn Kathir
> (1301-1372) wrote that the Jews did not alter the Torah, only their
> interpretation of the Torah:
It doesn't make any difference. What you have today as a "bible" is
nothing
more than an interpretation. I mean the Creator (tt) didn't send
anything in
English, did he? It had to be interpreted for you, and the changing of
the
meaning takes place here.
> "The phrase "[they] displace words from (their) right places" means
> that they misinterpret them and understand them in a way that God did
> not intend, doing this deliberately and inventing lies against God. "
When your people write English bibles for you, they misinterpret what
is written. What you are trying to rely on is against you all the way.
I
guess the case should be closed.
Abdalla Alothman
Imran Razi
>
comes to things non-Western including Islam. Most academics disdain
it, and in fact Wikipedia itself, recognizing the problem, is trying to
come up with a version vetted by qualified experts.
Robert
Try entering "Ibn Khazem" in the Google search engine.