sam shamoun <sam_shm...@hotmail.com> writes:Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>This is in response to Saifullah's most recent reaction. It isWell, I am still researching into the stuff. If Shamoun is getting too
>quite evident to any open-minded reader here at SRI that Saifullah
>has not been able to give a refutation to any of my arguments.
>Instead, he chases after irrelevant issues that basically have
>nothing to with the topic. Somehow he ends up talking about the
>Trinity and again shies away from dealing with the fact that
>the Quran affirms that the Bible is uncorrupt. This issue I have
>been raising repeatedly, only to see him repeatedly ignore the
>arguments and going off on a tangent.
excited that he is not being refuted, he can pat himself on his back. When
the refutation comes inshallah, we will see how well Shamoun is going to
Let us see what he has to say about it.
>Actually, it is you Saif who has violated the very principles youIt seems Shamoun has not understood what I said in my previous post. I said
>bring forth since you tried to take one passage, S. 5:48, to establish
>your point on the Quran correcting the Bible while overlooking the
>dozens of other references which both clarify the meaning of this
>verse as well as affirming the fact that the Bible is uncorrupt.
>(cf. 15:9; 16:43; 21:7, 48, 105; 40:53-54). You have consistently
>side-stepped the fact that the Bible is called the Reminder and
>that God swore to preserve the Reminder from corruption. Hence,
>if you were to apply the criteria above you would not get Bible
that the best exegesis of the Qur'an is by the Qur'an itself. This means
one has to take into consideration the context and internal relationships.
Internal relationships were encapsulated in the dictum: al-Qur'an yufassiru
ba'duhu ba'dan (different parts of the Qur'an explain one another), which,
given the structure of Qur'anic material, was argued to provide the most
correct method of understanding the Qur'an. One good example would be of
explanation of one aya in the Qur'an by another concerns a question of
which might arise from Sura 44:3. It is explained in Sura 97:1
We sent it down during a Blessed Night: [Qur'an 44:3]
Which might is this blessed night, in which the Qur'an was sent down?
We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power. [Qur'an 97:1]
So, in the case of the People of the Book, the Qur'an states this phrase at
If we use this first and foremost principle of the Qur'anic exegesis in the
The next issue on the list is what is the state of the Books that the
The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for
So hold thou fast to the Revelation sent down to thee; verily thou art on a
It is also worthwhile to point that the Prophet Muhammad(P) is also
Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. [88:21]
As far as I know (and still researching!) all the Books from God are
The third issue now is what is the status of the Books owned by the People
Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we
So, what have we got in the Scriptures of the People of the Book? Well,
O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to
It is quite clear that God has sent a clear and perspicuous Book which will
What is more interesting is that the above verse when read on context makes
And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming
The above verse states that the Qur'an confirms the revelation of the
What is more interesting in the above verse is that the Prophet(P) is asked
Another verse which is frequently quoted to support that the Bible is
We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard
I would ask the Christian missionaries just to read the tafsir of the verse
>Actually I have addressed this point since I clearly demonstratedShamoun, what have to demonstrated till now? "Covenant was still known and
>from S. 2:40-42 that the Covenant was still known and available at
>the time of Muhammad (at least in the case of the Jews) and had
>been commanded to follow it and not cover the truth that they both
>knew and had. Hence, forgetting does not imply corrupting, but
>rather neglecting the promise they made with God to follow the
>stipulations within the Covenant. So, Saif can you please give
>us one reference where the Quran plainly says that the Bible is
available at the time of Muhammad" in 2:40-42? If I say that I forgot half
of the book then what is left with me? The answer is the other half. It no
way implies that the whole book is remembered by me.
And well, Shamoun is the one who is trying to show that the Qur'an says
>Furthermore, although the Torah is not a reference to the entireUnfortunately, if Shamoun had read the above verse it opnly talks about
>Hebrew canon, the Quran alludes to the book of the Judeo-Christian
>communities which includes the entire Hebrew scriptures. In fact,
>Jesus came with the entire revelation of God which included the
>whole Hebrew canon:
> "And Allah will teach him THE BOOK, AND WISDOM, THE TORAH
>Seeing that the Hebrew scriptures at the time of Christ are
Tawraat and Injeel. He is cleverly extrapolating it to the whole of the
Hebrew Bible as being correct and endorsed by Jesus(P).
The extent of canon of both the Jewish and Christian scriptures was debated
"At its inception Christianity inherited from Judaism a rich trove of
David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1997, New York:
So, the argument is if Jesus(P) had endorsed the Hebrew Bible, why did the
>Finally, you never commented on the fact that the Quran tellsWell, go up and read how the exegesis of the Qur'an is carried out. And do
>Muhammad to not be in doubt about the book of Moses reaching him
>(cf. 32:23). Since Allah assured Muhammad that the Book of Moses
>has reached him, and that he would preserve the Reminder from
>corruption, and since this includes the Holy Bible, how can you
>even suggest that the Bible has been corrupted?
not parrot and issue emotional statements.
>Saif, you should be asking yourself this question since the evidenceBy the way, let me remind you of how to carry the discourse between two
>from your traditions clearly indicate that you are missing portions
>from the Quran. So, Saif what do you actually have from the Quran
>seeing that the traditions clearly state that not everything from
>it remained intact? Unlike the Quran, we have thousands of manuscripts
>of the Holy Bible and textual criticism has assured us of the fact
>that we have it substantially as it was originally passed down.
>This you definitely can't say of the Quran.
people who hardly know each other. I have never given you permission to
shorten my name of Saif or whatever. Please address me as Saifullah or Dr.
Saifullah. And please learn to maintain the decorum when addressing some
Now your buddy Katz once upon a time was talking about 'Who is afraid of
I have already refuted most of the stuff there at:
Further the results of textual criticism of the Bible have clearly shown
Now since you the boasting about thousands of manuscripts of the Bible,
Every textual criticism results in the formation of a critical text. What
>Finally, you seemingly didn't get the gist of my point on citing 3:55True followers of Jesus(P) are not his worshippers by the way.
>and 61:14 where it affirms that Jesus' true followers would prevail
>till the day of Resurrection. The only Christians who have prevailed
>are the Trinitarians, which implies that if the Quran is right (and
>to you it is) this is the true teachings of Jesus and his followers.
>Actually, I agree with Saif. If anyone dares to say that both JesusTrinitarians truly believe that the Father is God, the Son is God and the
>and his mother ARE GODS APART FROM GOD, THEY ARE DEAD WRONG. This
>again demonstrates that the Quran either attacks a heretical view
>of Christianity or is ignorant of the true understanding of what
>Trinitarians actually believe. So the Quran has failed to effectively
>define and rebut the actual historic position of the Trinity. If it
>is a revelation from God why was he not aware of what Trinitarians
>truly believe? This again proves that the origins of the Quran
>come from a finite, not well educated creature as opposed to the
Holy Spirit is God and they are three distict entities, i.e., the Father
can't be Son can't be Holy Spirit can't be Father. So, if you are thinking
that the Qur'an does not condemn shirk please read the Qur'an carefully.
Finally if you want to do some mathematics, three distinct entities in no
>At least you're honest enough to admit this, that's a good sign.Oh! I am sorry I do not believe in your faith and neither the carnality
>Since the Quran does not explicitly attack the Trinity of Father,
>Son, and Holy Spirit seeing that it has a carnal understanding
>of Sonship as well as accusing Christians of having more of
>a modalistic view of Jesus, you still have not produced any clear
>evidence from the Quran where it attacks the Trinity as defined
associated with it and neither does the Qur'an.
>Lord willing, I'll be praying for you in the hopes that you mightIf you are praying to Jesus(P) he can't save me because he could not save
>come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior, becoming my brother in
>Christ. You'll hear from again, insha-Rabb.
himself on the cross at the first place. I am sorry preach that in your
And by the way, you religion from the Islamic point of view is 'kufr' and
Dr. M S M Saifullah NTT Basic Research Laboratories
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.