Response to Saifullah
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>Again, nothing in these verses implies corruption to the text
>of scripture. In fact the opposite is true since S. 5:15 states
>that the Quran reveals much of what is hidden in the Book. The
>fact that it is in the Book argues that nothing is lost, but
>rather the Judeo-Christian communities are accused of simply
>withholding info that is in the text. Further evidence for
>this premise can be found in the following citation:
Well, Mr. Shamoun, I would first tell advise you to read how the Qur'anic
exegesis is carried out. 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
one place and then it would explain in another place who are the 'People'
and what are their 'Books'. Furthermore, the status of these 'Books' is
discussed in another place and then the status of the Qur'an is mentioned
vis-a-vis these 'Books'.
If you would bother to read the principles of the Qur'anic exegesis, it
would save me from a pedantic digression into these issues. Now if you
would bother to read all the stuff that you like to quote from the Qur'an
using these principles you would soon realize that you have long way to go
before you prove the your 'Bible' to be uncorrupted using the Qur'an.
By the way, you never answered what the fact that the Qur'an says that the
Jews and Christians have forgotton the message and what is left with them.
If one reads:
>From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant,
but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we
estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to
the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have
done. [5:14]
It is quite clear that the Christian have forgotton the good part of the
message and Allah is going to judge them on the Day of Judgement on what
they did.
>This passage affirms that Jesus' Gospel was available at the time
>of Muhammad for the Christians to follow. Furthermore, Jesus
>confirmed the Torah available at his time as being substantially
>the same as the one originally revealed to Moses. All one has to
>do is read the Gospel and see what that Law is, i.e. the very one
>recorded for us in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Sure, Torah does not mean the whole of Old Testament and neither does
Gospel mean the whole of New Testament. By the way, where does the Qur'an
affirms that Jesus' Gospel was available in toto to the Christians during
Muhammad's time?
>In summary, there is no conclusive verse in the Quran indicating
>the text of Scripture has been corrupted. Instead, one finds that
>the Quran affirms both the authority and preservation of the
>Biblical text.
And on the other hand, the Qur'an also states that the Jews and Christians
have forgotton the message from the God. So, Mr. Shamoun please show us
what have you got?
>> And if one considers "so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between
>> the one and the other", the history of Christianity is an ample proof of
>> how butchering was carried out by various groups of Christians in the past.
>> In fact the history is littered with it!
>
>This is nothing more than a red herring since we would have
>a field day with the Muslim atrocities committed throughout
>the centuries. Since the subject is the Bible and the Quran,
>not religious wars, I'll discard the smokescreen used by
>Saifullah to evade the real issues.
By the way, this is not the smoke-screen. Anyone who is well versed with
the history of Christianity would say the same thing that I am saying.
>Further, if one does consider the following passages one will
>clearly get a different picture from the one presented by Saif:
>
> "Behold! God said: 'O Jesus! I will raise thee to Myself
> And clear thee (of the falsehoods) Of those who blaspheme;
> I will make those Who follow thee superior To those who
> reject faith TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION; Then shall ye
> all return unto Me, And I will judge between you of the
> matters Wherein ye dispute." S. 3:55
>
> "O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus
> the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers
> to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's
> helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed,
> and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who
> believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones
> that prevailed." S. 61:14
>
>These verses state that the true believers would prevail, and
>this till the day of resurrection. Since the resurrection day
>has not occured, the Christianity which prevailed is the one
>that is true. The form of Christianity which has prevailed is
>Trinitarianism, an implication which does not help Saifullah
>at all.
One does not have to show how true the origins of trinitarianism are. It is
a fourth century doctrine and before that:
"Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state
of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion
constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three
hundred years - whether in terms of social structures, religious practices,
or ideologies - have never been replicated.
Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the realm of theology. In the
second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed
in only one God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet
others subscribed to 30, or 365, or more. Some Christians accepted the
Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one true God, the sacred
possession of all believers; others claimed that the scriptures had been
inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God had created
the world and was soon going to redeem it; others said that God neither had
created the world nor had ever had any dealings with it. Some Christians
believed that Christ was somehow both a man and God; others said that he
was a man, but not God; others claimed that he was God but not a man;
others insisted that he was a man who had been temporarily inhabited by
God. Some Christians believed that Christ's death had brought about the
salvation of the world; others claimed that his death had no bearing on
salvation; yet others alleged that he had never even died."
Bart D Ehrman, The Orthdox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early
Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament, 1993, Oxford
University Press, London & New York, pp. 3.
And the Qur'an also informs who are the false 'Christians'
And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me
and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it
did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had
said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my
mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great
Knower of the unseen things. [5:116]
So, it is pretty clear that any form of Christianity which worships gods
other than God has a bad news on the Day of Judgment.
>Several responses are in order. First, since this verse does not
>mention the text of the Bible but rather the belief of Christians.
>Are you saying that the Biblical text does indeed teach the deity
>of Christ as well as the Trinity seeing that you use this verse
>to debunk the text? If not, then this verse has nothing to do
>with the arguments you are trying to make against the Judeo-Christian
>text, so your point is invalid.
Well, I never said that the Biblical text teaches the trinity and neither a
scholar who has studied the evolution of Christian doctrine would say that.
>Secondly, this is precisley why I cannot become a Muslim since
>in the one hand the Quran confirms the preservation and authority
>of the Bible, while at the same time it contradicts the very heart
>of its teachings. This indicates the revealer of the Quran was
>not the Omniscient God, but a finite creature who was ignorant
>of the true contents of the Bible.
I would be very glad to refute you on your own grounds. So, do not get too
excited about this issue, inshallah.
>Thirdly, do care to inform your readers that the word Trinity is
>not in the Arabic, since the Quran has an incorrect view of what
>the Trinity actually is. That is why this translation tries to
>obscure this fact by inserting the word "Trinity" where it is not
>to be found.
The trinity actually is a fourth century doctrine. So, what is your point?
Jesus(P) taught it or Apostolic Fathers propagated it? Why not check out
some of the quotes at:
http://www.planet.eon.net/~hector1/trinity2.htm
Sure, the Qur'anic phrase does not explicitly mentions that as a trinity.
As far as I remember, it is 'third of three'. The Qur'an is explicitly
monothesitic and condemns all form of shirk or trinitarianism, whether it
be a combination of Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Father, Son or Mary or
Father, Son or say an animal like a donkey. To say that the Qur'an does not
condemn true 'Christianity' is a delibarate deception!
--
Dr. M S M Saifullah NTT Basic Research Laboratories
'Islamic Awareness' http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/
sam shamoun
This is in response to Saifullah's most recent reaction. It is
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.
In article <7j1fju$fl4$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, "Dr. M S M Saifullah"
<sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> responded:
Actually, it is you Saif who has violated the very principles you
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
corruption.
> By the way, you never answered what the fact that the Qur'an says that the
> Jews and Christians have forgotton the message and what is left with them.
> If one reads:
>
> From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant,
> but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we
> estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to
> the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have
> done. [5:14]
>
> It is quite clear that the Christian have forgotton the good part of the
> message and Allah is going to judge them on the Day of Judgement on what
> they did.
Actually I have addressed this point since I clearly demonstrated
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
corrupt?
> Sure, Torah does not mean the whole of Old Testament and neither does
> Gospel mean the whole of New Testament. By the way, where does the Qur'an
> affirms that Jesus' Gospel was available in toto to the Christians during
> Muhammad's time?
Actually, Saif , the Quran nowhere implies that parts of the Bible
have been either lost or corrupt. So there is no need for me to
bring a verse affirming that the complete Gospel was available
since the Quran doesn't even assume that anything of it was missing.
You need to produce a verse that says the entire Gospel was not
available, or that only part of it is valid.
Furthermore, although the Torah is not a reference to the entire
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
AND THE GOSPEL." S. 3:48
Seeing that the Hebrew scriptures at the time of Christ are
virtually identical to what we have in our possession, we know
what that revelation was. You must now demonstrate to us that
the divine writings which Jesus was taught is different from
that contained in the Hebrew Bible of today. But unfortunately
for you, the evidence is clearly against you.
Finally, you never commented on the fact that the Quran tells
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?
> And on the other hand, the Qur'an also states that the Jews and Christians
> have forgotton the message from the God. So, Mr. Shamoun please show us
> what have you got?
Saif, you should be asking yourself this question since the evidence
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.
Since the topic is not the Trinity, Saifullah has now shifted the
focus of discussion to an irrelevant one. But that's all right Saif
I'll jump with you on any topic you care to discuss. First Ehrman is
not an infallible source for either you or me, and can be easily
proven wrong. The New Testament which is a pre-Nicean text, quotations
from the disciples of the Apostles and their followers all affirm the
fact that their understanding of God was not a uni-Personal Being,
but a tri-Personal Entity. If you want to discuss the Trinity I'll
be more than happy to, providing the evidence which would again rebut
your assertions on the alleged fourth century origin of the Trinity.
Finally, you seemingly didn't get the gist of my point on citing 3:55
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.
This leaves you with two problems. First, if Trinitarianism is true
then the Quran's view of God is wrong. Secondly, if it is wrong then
it is not a revelation from God and Muhammad is not a prophet of God.
> And the Qur'an also informs who are the false 'Christians'
>
> And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me
> and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it
> did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had
> said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my
> mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great
> Knower of the unseen things. [5:116]
>
> So, it is pretty clear that any form of Christianity which worships gods
> other than God has a bad news on the Day of Judgment.
Actually, I agree with Saif. If anyone dares to say that both Jesus
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
Omniscient God.
> >Several responses are in order. First, since this verse does not
> >mention the text of the Bible but rather the belief of Christians.
> >Are you saying that the Biblical text does indeed teach the deity
> >of Christ as well as the Trinity seeing that you use this verse
> >to debunk the text? If not, then this verse has nothing to do
> >with the arguments you are trying to make against the Judeo-Christian
> >text, so your point is invalid.
>
> Well, I never said that the Biblical text teaches the trinity and neither a
> scholar who has studied the evolution of Christian doctrine would say that.
If you didn't, then why did you even bring up S. 5:72 and 75 seeing
that these verses having nothing to do with the text? Furthermore,
you fail to distinguish between the formulation of the DOCTRINE of
the Trinity from the biblical witness to the Trinity. Again, if you
want to discuss the Trinity, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
I'm more than willing.
> Sure, the Qur'anic phrase does not explicitly mentions that as a trinity.
> As far as I remember, it is 'third of three'. The Qur'an is explicitly
> monothesitic and condemns all form of shirk or trinitarianism, whether it
> be a combination of Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Father, Son or Mary or
> Father, Son or say an animal like a donkey. To say that the Qur'an does not
> condemn true 'Christianity' is a delibarate deception!
At least you're honest enough to admit this, that's a good sign.
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
by Trinitarians.
Lord willing, I'll be praying for you in the hopes that you might
come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior, becoming my brother in
Christ. You'll hear from again, insha-Rabb.
In His Service,
Sam
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
>This is in response to Saifullah's most recent reaction. It is
>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.
Well, I am still researching into the stuff. If Shamoun is getting too
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
perform.
Let us see what he has to say about it.
>Actually, it is you Saif who has violated the very principles you
>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
>corruption.
It seems Shamoun has not understood what I said in my previous post. I said
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
one place and then it would explain in another place who are the 'People'
and what are their 'Books'. Furthermore, the status of these 'Books' is
discussed in another place and then the status of the Qur'an is mentioned
vis-a-vis these 'Books'.
If we use this first and foremost principle of the Qur'anic exegesis in the
case of "People of the Book", it is clear that the People are 'Jews and
Christians' and their Books are 'Tawraat and Injeel'. This means that the
Qur'an does not say anything else about other books in the Bible except the
mention of Zabur of David(P). And unfortunately for Shamoun he has not
learnt his lessons well. He is still try to push the fact that the Qur'an
confirms the Bible whereas the Qur'an does not even mention the Bible at
all. It only mentions the scriptures given to the People of the Book which
are 'tawraat' and 'injeel'.
The next issue on the list is what is the state of the Books that the
People of the Scripture. The Qur'an confirms 'tawraat' and 'injeel' and
addresses them as furqan or a criterion to judge between right and wrong
and a reminder. The Qur'an also calls itself as furqan (well! it is one of
the names of the Qur'an!) as well as a reminder. e.g.
---------
The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for
mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and
wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and
whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of
other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you;
and (He desireth) that ye should complete the period, and that ye should
magnify Allah for having guided you, and that peradventure ye may be
thankful. [2:185]
So hold thou fast to the Revelation sent down to thee; verily thou art on a
Straight Way. And lo! it is in truth a Reminder for thee and for thy folk;
and ye will be questioned. [43:43-44]
-----------------
It is also worthwhile to point that the Prophet Muhammad(P) is also
addressed as a reminder.
------
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
reminders and criterion to judge between right and wrong.
The third issue now is what is the status of the Books owned by the People
of the Book. Are they complete or incomplete? The below verses clearly
state that the People of the Book forgot good part of the message and what
they have is what is left with them. So, that is the status of their
scriptures.
-------
Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we
appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye
(but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my
messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan,
verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with
rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he
hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude." But because of their
breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard;
they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of
the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a
few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their
misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call
themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part
of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and
hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will
Allah show them what it is they have done. [3:12-14]
-------------
So, what have we got in the Scriptures of the People of the Book? Well,
that is anybody's guess. Further if we read the next few verses
-------
O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to
you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is
now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a
perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to
ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will,
unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight. [3:15-16]
-------------
It is quite clear that God has sent a clear and perspicuous Book which will
lead them out of darkness and to the straight path. It would be very hard
to understand why God will send a new Book which will guide people to the
straight path if the previous Scriptures were all intact! And it is
worthwhile to remember that not every Prophet/Messenger was sent with a
Book.
What is more interesting is that the above verse when read on context makes
clear the status of the Qur'an vis-a-vis the previous Scriptures. The
People of the Book do not have their Tawraat and Injeel intact in the
pristine condition. Further, Shamoun's unsuccessful attempts to show the
use of Muhaymin in verse 5:48 needs to be clarified.
-------
And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming
whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between
them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away
from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a
divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you
one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He
hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah
ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
[5:48]
-----------
The above verse states that the Qur'an confirms the revelation of the
previous Scriptures and watcher over it. The word used is Muhaymin which
means watcher, protector or quality control. Hilali and Muhsin Khan's
interpretation of the Qur'an that is based on the exegetical interpretation
(i.e., Tabari, Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir) says that Muhaymin means confirming
truth and falsifying the falsehood that is there in the previous
Scriptures. So, there we go!
What is more interesting in the above verse is that the Prophet(P) is asked
to judge the People of the Book by what is revealed to him, i.e., the
Qur'an, and not to follow the desires of the People of the Book. So, the
statements that we are used to seeing here on theis newsgroup that the
Qur'an gives 'authority' to the Bible is simply false and misleading.
Another verse which is frequently quoted to support that the Bible is
uncorrupted is :
------
We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard
it (from corruption). [15:9]
---------
I would ask the Christian missionaries just to read the tafsir of the verse
and which Message it is talking about.
>Actually I have addressed this point since I clearly demonstrated
>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
>corrupt?
Shamoun, what have to demonstrated till now? "Covenant was still known and
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
that the Scriptures of the People of the Book are intact. Now that he has
understood the problem that they do not have in toto; he wants me to show
that whatever Scripture is with them is what is correct. Firstly, the
simply answer to this question is 'I do not know what is with you'. And I
have the Qur'an to judge what is with you.
>Furthermore, although the Torah is not a reference to the entire
>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
> AND THE GOSPEL." S. 3:48
>
>Seeing that the Hebrew scriptures at the time of Christ are
>virtually identical to what we have in our possession, we know
>what that revelation was. You must now demonstrate to us that
>the divine writings which Jesus was taught is different from
>that contained in the Hebrew Bible of today. But unfortunately
>for you, the evidence is clearly against you.
Unfortunately, if Shamoun had read the above verse it opnly talks about
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
even into 5th century; the problem is still for the Christianity as the
extent of what goes into the 'canon' was disputed even in 16th century, 900
years after the advent of Islam! The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:
"At its inception Christianity inherited from Judaism a rich trove of
scripture, including the Law of Moses, the prophetic books, and a great
variety of other writings that were authoritative for various groups of
Jews, but it did not inherit a canon, for Judaism had not in the 1st
century made a list or collection setting limits to its scripture........
Not until the end of the 2d century did Christians begin to take an
interest in defining the scope of authoritative Jewish writings (Melito, in
Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 4.26.13-14) and thus begin to think in terms of an
"Old Testament" canon, an issue that continued to be debated into the 5th
century. And not until the 4th century did Christians begin to draw up
lists of authoritative Christian writings and thus attempt to form a "New
Testament" canon, the extent of which was not fully agreed even in the 5th
century. Hence during most of its first four centuries, the church had
scripture, but no set canon."
David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1997, New York:
Doubleday, (Under Canon, New Testament).
So, the argument is if Jesus(P) had endorsed the Hebrew Bible, why did the
Christians still debated the extant of the Hebrew Bible into the 5th
century?
>Finally, you never commented on the fact that the Quran tells
>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?
Well, go up and read how the exegesis of the Qur'an is carried out. And do
not parrot and issue emotional statements.
>Saif, you should be asking yourself this question since the evidence
>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.
By the way, let me remind you of how to carry the discourse between two
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
unknown person.
Now your buddy Katz once upon a time was talking about 'Who is afraid of
textual criticism?" Finally it so happened that he was really afraid of it
and started calling the textual critics of the Bible as 'liberal scholars'
etc etc.
I have already refuted most of the stuff there at:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/textcriticism.html
Further the results of textual criticism of the Bible have clearly shown
that the Bible was never agreed upon as one set of Books by all the
Christians of the world. Check out:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/BibleTex.html
Now since you the boasting about thousands of manuscripts of the Bible,
what result does that give us in terms of the reliability of the Bible? If
you have missed it, it is at:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
Every textual criticism results in the formation of a critical text. What
are implications of such an exercise with respect to New Testament? Check
out:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/criticaltext.html
>Finally, you seemingly didn't get the gist of my point on citing 3:55
>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.
True followers of Jesus(P) are not his worshippers by the way.
>Actually, I agree with Saif. If anyone dares to say that both Jesus
>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
>Omniscient God.
Trinitarians truly believe that the Father is God, the Son is God and 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
way become one undistinct entity without loosing their distinct character.
Three can't be one and one can't be three.
>At least you're honest enough to admit this, that's a good sign.
>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
>by Trinitarians.
Oh! I am sorry I do not believe in your faith and neither the carnality
associated with it and neither does the Qur'an.
>Lord willing, I'll be praying for you in the hopes that you might
>come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior, becoming my brother in
>Christ. You'll hear from again, insha-Rabb.
If you are praying to Jesus(P) he can't save me because he could not save
himself on the cross at the first place. I am sorry preach that in your
Church.
And by the way, you religion from the Islamic point of view is 'kufr' and
abrogated by Islam not to mention your 'Bible'!
sam shamoun
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" <sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> responded yet again...
But it becomes ever more clear that Saifullah has nothing
worthwhile to say. For the most part his responses evades
the main points. Saifullah's arguments are basically repeats
>from previous posts to which I have already responded to.
The fact that he has to repeat himself indicates that he
has absolutely no arguments against the evidence compiled.
In fact, the same arguments he employs against the Bible
are now being used against the Quran and the results are
not pleasing to orthodox Muslims. Let us begin the torture
session:
> Well, I am still researching into the stuff. If Shamoun is getting too
> 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
> perform.
If your refutation is anything like your posts and the
articles at your web site then they really won't amount
to much since you lack substance in your arguments.
Besides, I'm not here to "win" but to expose the shallow
arguments used by Muslims and how these arguments can be
turned even more forcefully against Islam.
Saifullah has the habit of constantly repeating the same
material over and over again. Which part of my response did
you not understand? As I stated you fail to uphold this
principle since you take one verse, as you did here again,
and build a case against the Bible while neglecting scores
of verses in support of its authenticity.
> If we use this first and foremost principle of the Qur'anic exegesis in the
> case of "People of the Book", it is clear that the People are 'Jews and
> Christians' and their Books are 'Tawraat and Injeel'. This means that the
> Qur'an does not say anything else about other books in the Bible except the
> mention of Zabur of David(P). And unfortunately for Shamoun he has not
> learnt his lessons well. He is still try to push the fact that the Qur'an
> confirms the Bible whereas the Qur'an does not even mention the Bible at
> all. It only mentions the scriptures given to the People of the Book which
> are 'tawraat' and 'injeel'.
Are you sure that it does not mention the Bible seeing that
the word is derived from the Greek and simply means the BOOK,
the very word used BY THE QURAN TO DESCRIBE WHAT WAS IN THE
HANDS OF THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS? Furthermore, it is not
necessarily true that Tawrat only means the books of Moses
since in one Hadith the term is used to refer to a prophecy
in the book of Isaiah:
"Mishkat al-Masabih cites several traditions (Book XXVI, Ch. XVIII,
pp. 1232, 1233 and ch. XIX, p. 1244) which indicate that the Torah
prophesies the coming of Muhammad.
`Ata b. Yasar told that he met `Abdallah b. `Amr b. al-As
and asked him to inform him of the description of God's
messenger given in the Torah. He agreed, swearing by God
that he was certainly described in the Torah by part of
the description of him given in the Qur'an when it says,
"O prophet, We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of
good tidings, and a warner, and a guard for the common
people." (from Al-Ahzab 33:45) The following is from the
Torah-Old Testament, (Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7.) "You are my
servant and my messenger; I have called you the one who
trusts, not harsh or rough, nor loud-voiced in the streets.
He will not repulse evil with evil, but will pardon and
forgive, and God will not take him till He uses him to
straighten the crooked creed so that people may say there
is no god but God, and he opens thereby blind eyes,
deaf ears and hardened hearts. Bukhari transmitted it,
and Darimi also gives something to the same effect on
the authority of `Ata who gave as his authority Ibn Salam.
Since Muhammad was present when this Jew quoted Isaiah as part
of the Torah without correcting him, you are left with problems
when you make such assertions. Furthermore, I clearly gave
references to support the fact that along with the Torah, the
Quran mentions the Book that was given to Jesus and others.
More on this shortly.
> The next issue on the list is what is the state of the Books that the
> People of the Scripture. The Qur'an confirms 'tawraat' and 'injeel' and
> addresses them as furqan or a criterion to judge between right and wrong
> and a reminder. The Qur'an also calls itself as furqan (well! it is one of
> the names of the Qur'an!) as well as a reminder. e.g.
Actually, it confirms that which was in the possession of the
Judeo-Christian communities as being the Reminder. And what
was in their hands was THE BOOK, not just the Torah and Injil.
> The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for
> mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and
> wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and
> whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of
> other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you;
> and (He desireth) that ye should complete the period, and that ye should
> magnify Allah for having guided you, and that peradventure ye may be
> thankful. [2:185]
>
> So hold thou fast to the Revelation sent down to thee; verily thou art on a
> Straight Way. And lo! it is in truth a Reminder for thee and for thy folk;
> and ye will be questioned. [43:43-44]
> It is also worthwhile to point that the Prophet Muhammad(P) is also
> addressed as a reminder.
> 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
> reminders and criterion to judge between right and wrong.
Precisely, ALL BOOKS SENT DOWN BY GOD ARE CLASSIFIED AS THE
REMINDER which means that God has sworn to preserve them all,
refuting your entire argument on Bible corruption.
> The third issue now is what is the status of the Books owned by the People
> of the Book. Are they complete or incomplete? The below verses clearly
> state that the People of the Book forgot good part of the message and what
> they have is what is left with them. So, that is the status of their
> scriptures.
> Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we
> appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye
> (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my
> messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan,
> verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with
> rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he
> hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude." But because of their
> breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard;
> they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of
> the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a
> few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their
> misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call
> themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part
> of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and
> hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will
> Allah show them what it is they have done. [3:12-14]
> So, what have we got in the Scriptures of the People of the Book? Well,
> that is anybody's guess. Further if we read the next few verses
Actually it is not for anyone to guess since YOUR QURAN SAYS
THAT ALLAH WILL PRESERVE THE REMINDER COMPLETE (S. 15:9; 16:43;
21:7, 48, 105; 40:53-54.) Why do you run from these passages?
Since this verse states that they also change the verses from
the right places let us see how this affects the Quran's
authenticity:
"Can you (O men of faith) still earnestly desire that they
(the Jews) will believe in you? And verily a party (fariq)
among them hear the Word of God, THEN THEY PEREVERT IT
KNOWINGLY after they have understood it. And when they meet
the believers they say, `We believe,' but when they meet
each other in private they say, `Why do you tell them what
God has revealed to you (in the Torah), that they may engage
you in argument about it before their God? What do you not
understand?' Do they not know that God knows what they
conceal and what they make public?" S. 2:75-77.
"Of the Jews there are those WHO DISPLACE WORDS FROM THEIR
(RIGHT) PLACES, and say: 'We hear And we disobey'; And,
'Hear what is not Heard'; and Ra'ina'; WITH A TWIST OF THEIR
TONGUES AND A SLANDER TO THE FAITH. If only they had said:
'We hear and we obey' ; And 'Do hear'." S. 4:46
According to Yusuf Ali, this verse is a response to the Jews who
would mock and ridicule the QURAN and Muhammad. Using Saifullah's
logic we would conclude that the Quran is corrupt since there
were those individuals who perverted the Quran and its meaning.
> O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to
> you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is
> now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a
> perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to
> ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will,
> unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight. [3:15-16]
> It is quite clear that God has sent a clear and perspicuous Book which will
> lead them out of darkness and to the straight path. It would be very hard
> to understand why God will send a new Book which will guide people to the
> straight path if the previous Scriptures were all intact! And it is
> worthwhile to remember that not every Prophet/Messenger was sent with a
> Book.
Are you sure you even want to use this argument? If so, God
definitely needs to send another Book to clear up the confusion
of Islam with its sects and subsects etc. Furthermore, that's
precisely my point! The Quran is not from God since it confirms
the preservation of the Bible while contradicting its message.
This means that either God forgot what he had revealed previously
or that Muhammad is not a true Prophet of God. Finally, the
Torah and the Injil available at the time of Muhammad is also
called a guidance and the light:
"And in their footsteps (of Moses and the Jews) We sent
Jesus the son of Mary, attesting to (the truth of) the
Torah which was between his hands; and We gave him the
Gospel - therein is GUIDANCE AND LIGHT AND ATTESTONG TO
(THE TRUTH OF) THE TORAH WHICH WAS BETWEEN HIS HANDS:
a GUIDANCE AND AN ADMONITION to the righteous." S. 5:49
"And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are
righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs;
who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom
they find written in THE TORAH AND THE GOSPEL THAT IS
WITH THEM." 7:156-157
Please note that it says THE Torah and Injil/Gospel was with
the Jews and Christians during Muhammad's time. No mention of
corruption whatsoever. So much for your arguments.
> And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming
> whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between
> them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away
> from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a
> divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you
> one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He
> hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah
> ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
> [5:48]
> The above verse states that the Qur'an confirms the revelation of the
> previous Scriptures and watcher over it. The word used is Muhaymin which
> means watcher, protector or quality control. Hilali and Muhsin Khan's
> interpretation of the Qur'an that is based on the exegetical interpretation
> (i.e., Tabari, Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir) says that Muhaymin means confirming
> truth and falsifying the falsehood that is there in the previous
> Scriptures. So, there we go!
Actually, Saifullah you have failed to even rebut my response
to this. Using your argument about the Quran interpreting itself,
this verse when read with the overall Quranic testimony to the
Bible can only mean that its function is to protect the latter
>from corruption, not to expose corruption to it. Furthermore,
you again commit an etymological fallacy since we do not derive
meanings for words from their root, but from usage. Finally,
since you quote Khan and Hillali let us see if others agree
with their definition:
"And We have sent down to thee the Book with the truth,
confirming the Book that was before it, and ASSURING IT."
The Koran Interpreted, A.J. Arberry (Touchstone Books,
Simon & Schuster inc., 1996), p. 135
The Quran assures the Bible, not expose corruption to it.
"And to you We have revealed the Book containing the truth,
confirming the earlier revelations, AND PRESERVING THEM
(FROM CHANGE AND CORRUPTION)." Al-Quran A Contemporary
Translation by Ahmad Ali (Princeton University Press,
New Jersey, fifth ed. 1994), p. 104.
Note how this Muslim understands the verse as saying that it
protects from corruption and change, not exposing corruption
of the biblical text.
"Now We have revealed unto thee this Book comprising the truth,
fulfilling that which was revealed befoe it of the Book, and
as A GUARDIAN OVER IT." The Quran Arabic Text With A New
Translation by Muhammad Zafrullah Khan (Olive Branch, New York,
1997), p. 107.
"And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying
what was before it of the Book and A GUARDIAN OVER IT."
The Quran by Mahomedali Habib, trans. M.H. Shakir (Tahrike
Tarsile Quran inc., 1995), p. 103.
"And to thee We have sent down the Book of the Koran with truth,
confirmatory of previous Scriptures, AND THEIR SAFEGUARD."
The Koran by J.M. Rodwell (Ivy Books, New York, 1993), p.67.
The Quran SAFEGUARDS the Bible.
"And We have revealed to thee the Book with the truth,
verifying that which was before it of the Book and
A GUARDIAN OVER IT." Holy Quran Arabic Text, English
Translation and Commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali
(Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore Inc., U.S.A.,
1995) p. 256.
"And to you We have revealed the Book with the truth. It
confirms the Scriptures which came before it and stands
as A GUARDIAN OVER IT.." The Koran Revised Translation
by N.J. Dawood (Penguin Books, England, 1997), p.85
The Quran assures, preserve, guards, safe-guards the Bible.
These translations along with the verses promising the
preservation of the Reminder, which includes the Bible,
should be sufficient in establishing the Quranic witness
to the Biblical text, unless you're Saifullah.
> What is more interesting in the above verse is that the Prophet(P) is asked
> to judge the People of the Book by what is revealed to him, i.e., the
> Qur'an, and not to follow the desires of the People of the Book. So, the
> statements that we are used to seeing here on theis newsgroup that the
> Qur'an gives 'authority' to the Bible is simply false and misleading.
It is only misleading if you believe in Muhammad's prophethood.
Since I don't, I can see how Muhammad would think that by
confirming previous Scriptures he thought that there would be
no problem since he was under the assumption that the message
of the scriptures were in line with his beliefs. Unfortunately
for him, he was wrong.
> Another verse which is frequently quoted to support that the Bible is
> uncorrupted is :
> We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard
> it (from corruption). [15:9]
> I would ask the Christian missionaries just to read the tafsir of the verse
> and which Message it is talking about.
Saifullah, I thought you just said that the Quran was its best
interpreter? If so, why would I need to go to the commentaries
when I have the Quran to tell me that this Reminder includes
the Bible as part of what God would preserve?
> >Actually I have addressed this point since I clearly demonstrated
> >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
> >corrupt?
>
> Shamoun, what have to demonstrated till now? "Covenant was still known and
> 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.
Actually this argument prove my point since you can forgot part
of the Book with the Book still being intact. The Book was not
only in the memory of one person, it was in manuscripts which
are not affected by "some peoples' forgetting". Hence, they did
not corrupt the Book, but were not following the stipulations
contained within it. Your point actually proves you wrong!
Thank you Saifullah, I appreciate it!
> And well, Shamoun is the one who is trying to show that the Qur'an says
> that the Scriptures of the People of the Book are intact. Now that he has
> understood the problem that they do not have in toto; he wants me to show
> that whatever Scripture is with them is what is correct. Firstly, the
> simply answer to this question is 'I do not know what is with you'. And I
> have the Qur'an to judge what is with you.
Actually, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS WITH YOU SINCE YOU ARE MISSING
MATERIAL FROM THE QURAN. Or did you forget? :
"Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of
the Quran). Yet WE LEAVE SOME OF WHAT HE RECITES. Ubai says,
"I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and WILL
NOT LEAVE FOR ANYTHING WHATEVER." But Allah said: None of
Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten
but We substitute something better or similar. (2:106)."
Bukhari 6:527
Let us see what Kitab al-Masahif says about this point:
"Many of (the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were
known by those who died on the day of Yamama... BUT THEY WERE
NOT KNOWN (BY THOSE WHO) SURVIVED THEM, NOR WERE THEY WRITTEN
DOWN, NOR HAD ABU BAKR, UMAR, OR UTHMAN (BY THAT TIME) COLLECTED
THE QUR'AN, NOR WERE THEY FOUND EVEN WITH (ONE PERSON) AFTER
THEM." (p.23)
Abu Ubaid's book, Kitab Fada 'il al-Quran, translated by Jeffrey
states:
"Ismail b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi from Ibn
Umar who said- LET NONE OF YOU SAY, 'I HAVE LEARNED THE WHOLE
OF THE KORAN,' FOR HOW DOES HE KNOW WHAT THE WHOLE OF IT IS,
WHEN MUCH OF IT HAS DISAPPEARED? Let him rather say, 'I have
learned WHAT IS EXTANT THEREOF.'" (Warraq, The Origins of
the Koran-Classical Essays on Islam's Holy Book [Amherst, NY;
Prometheus Books, 1998], p. 151)
So, Saifullah, you may yell textual criticism all you want, the
traditions of Islam as a whole refute your belief in a perfectly
preserved Quranic text. More on textual criticism shortly.
Saifullah goes on to say in regards to Jesus confirming the
Hebrew Bible in 3:48:
> Unfortunately, if Shamoun had read the above verse it opnly talks about
> Tawraat and Injeel. He is cleverly extrapolating it to the whole of the
> Hebrew Bible as being correct and endorsed by Jesus(P).
Do you actually read what is cited? Here it is again:
"And Allah will teach him THE BOOK, AND WISDOM, THE TORAH
AND THE GOSPEL." S. 3:48
It does not say just the Torah and Injil, but also THE BOOK.
Other references which appeal to "the Book" during the time of
Jesus include:
"O Yahya (i.e. John the Baptist)! Take hold OF THE BOOK
WITH MIGHT..." S. 19:12
"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity
and We breathed into (her body) of Our Spirit; and she
testified of the truth of the words of her Lord and of
HIS BOOKS (KTUBIHII), and was one of the devout." S. 66:12
Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist were believers of God's Book(s),
not just the Torah and the Injil. Since we know what the Book
was like, this is another confirmation from the Quran that the
Hebrew Scriptures are not corrupt. So, Saifullah, you are wrong
again.
> The extent of canon of both the Jewish and Christian scriptures was debated
> even into 5th century; the problem is still for the Christianity as the
> extent of what goes into the 'canon' was disputed even in 16th century, 900
> years after the advent of Islam! The Anchor Bible Dictionary says:
>
> "At its inception Christianity inherited from Judaism a rich trove of
> scripture, including the Law of Moses, the prophetic books, and a great
> variety of other writings that were authoritative for various groups of
> Jews, but it did not inherit a canon, for Judaism had not in the 1st
> century made a list or collection setting limits to its scripture........
> Not until the end of the 2d century did Christians begin to take an
> interest in defining the scope of authoritative Jewish writings (Melito, in
> Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 4.26.13-14) and thus begin to think in terms of an
> "Old Testament" canon, an issue that continued to be debated into the 5th
> century. And not until the 4th century did Christians begin to draw up
> lists of authoritative Christian writings and thus attempt to form a "New
> Testament" canon, the extent of which was not fully agreed even in the 5th
> century. Hence during most of its first four centuries, the church had
> scripture, but no set canon."
>
> David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1997, New York:
> Doubleday, (Under Canon, New Testament).
>
> So, the argument is if Jesus(P) had endorsed the Hebrew Bible, why did the
> Christians still debated the extant of the Hebrew Bible into the 5th
> century?
As to the question of why did the Christians disagree is irrelevant
since the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was already closed during
the first century. The Jewish classification of the 39 books into
the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings/Psalms is that
which Jesus appealed to. No mention of the Apocrypha:
"He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was with
you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me
in the LAW OF MOSES, THE PROPHETS, AND THE PSALMS.'" Luke 24:44
Furthermore, the fact that the canon was complete before Islam
and that the Quran affirms the book that was in the hands of
the Jews-Christians as the inspired word of God affirms that
the canon agreed upon prior was viewed by Muhammad as God's
word. Finally, we must again ask if Muhammad had told his
followers what the canon of the Quran was why did they disagree
as whether that canon consisted of 111 Suras (Masud). 116 (Kabb),
or 114 (Uthman)? Please show us one verse from the Quran where
it says 114 Surahs make up the cannon of your text. I'll be
waiting for a response, so I hope you won't dodge this issue
as you do with most of my points.
> >Finally, you never commented on the fact that the Quran tells
> >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?
>
> Well, go up and read how the exegesis of the Qur'an is carried out. And do
> not parrot and issue emotional statements.
Again, do you want me to use your principle of letting the Quran
interpret itself or should I go to fallible men? It seems you
put your trust in fallible men as opposed to Divine revelation
since you often quote from them as if they were infallible.
> >Saif, you should be asking yourself this question since the evidence
> >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.
>
> By the way, let me remind you of how to carry the discourse between two
> 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
> unknown person.
Do I sense emotionalism here? If you can't dialogue without
getting emotional then maybe you should stop debating. If the
heat in the kitchen is too much, well you know the rest. By
the way, it was not me who chose "saif" as your email user id
being sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp But since it is important for you,
and I never meant the use of "Saif" to be in any way negative,
I will henceforth be calling you Saifullah.
> Now your buddy Katz once upon a time was talking about 'Who is afraid of
> textual criticism?" Finally it so happened that he was really afraid of it
> and started calling the textual critics of the Bible as 'liberal scholars'
> etc etc.
>
> I have already refuted most of the stuff there at:
>
> http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/textcriticism.html
>
> Further the results of textual criticism of the Bible have clearly shown
> that the Bible was never agreed upon as one set of Books by all the
> Christians of the world. Check out:
>
> http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/BibleTex.html
>
> Now since you the boasting about thousands of manuscripts of the Bible,
> what result does that give us in terms of the reliability of the Bible? If
> you have missed it, it is at:
>
> http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
>
> Every textual criticism results in the formation of a critical text. What
> are implications of such an exercise with respect to New Testament? Check
> out:
>
> http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/criticaltext.html
I actually looked through most of it already, and can safely
say that you give a very false and misleading impression. Let
me rebut some of your points. First, you give the assumption
that the New Testament writings were not considered inspired
by early Church Fathers, citing authorities on this point.
Well, let us see whether your point sticks:
According to Paul "all Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16).
That this includes certain portions of the New Testament is easily
demonstrated from the following citation:
"For the SCRIPTURE says, 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is
treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'"
1 Timothy 5:18
Paul quotes both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and classifies
them both as Scripture. This shows that from a very early date
Luke's writings were received as inspired.
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, JUST
AS OUR DEAR BROTHER PAUL ALSO WROTE YOU WITH THE WISDOM THAT
GOD GAVE HIM. His letters contain some things that are hard
to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,
AS THEY DO OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:15-16
Whether one accepts Petrine authorship or not, this is evidence
of the early acceptance of some, if not all, of Paul's writings
as Scripture. Let us proceed to the Church Fathers:
"For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live,
and four universal winds [these two comments refer to N, S, E, W],
and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the
gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and breath of
life, so it is natural that it should have FOUR PILLARS...
[God] has given us the gospel in FOURFOLD FORM, BUT HELD
TOGETHER BY ONE SPIRIT." Irenaeus, d. 180 A.D. [follower
of Polycarp disciple of the Apostle John]. (Josh McDowell,
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Vol. I [San Bernardino, CA:
Here's Life, 1972], pp. 63-64).
"Take up the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. What did
he write to you (Corinthians) at the time when the Gospel
first began to be preached? Truly, he wrote to you UNDER
THE INSPIRATION OF THE SPIRIT." Clement of Rome 96 A.D.
(David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs
[Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998], p. 601)
"The apostle has used the same word in writing. For he was
guided, of course, BY THE SAME SPIRIT BY WHOM THE BOOK OF
GENESIS WAS DRAWN UP- AS WERE ALL THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES."
Tertullian, 198 A.D. (Ibid., p. 602)
"Although different matters are taught us in the various books
of the Gosples, there is not difference as regards the faith
of believers. For in all of them, all things are related UNDER
ONE IMPERIAL SPIRIT." Muratorian Fragment, 200 A.D. (Ibid.)
"In addition for the proof of our statements, we take the
testimonies from that which is called the Old Testament and
that which is called the New- WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE DIVINE
WRITINGS." Origen, 225 A.D.
This clearly indicates that from the inception of the writings,
one can find support for the Church's view of both the authority
and inspiration of most, if not all, of the NT books.
Another misleading impression in Saifullah's writings arises
>from certain statements that the early Church was not interested
in the original reading, but the best. Let us what the Fathers
have to say:
"This number [666] is found in all THE MOST APPROVED AND ANCIENT
COPIES [of Revelation]. Furthermore, those men who saw John face
to face bear their testimony... I do not know how it is that
some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech and have
corrupted the middle number in the name... Afterwards, others
received this reading WITHOUT EXAMINATION." Irenaeus, 180 A.D.
(Ibid., p. 640)
Irenaeus is both aware of the most reliable and ancient copies
>from the ones which are unreliable. Furthermore, he also criticizes
individuals for not critically examining manuscripts for authenticity.
Since they both had the testimony of John's companions and accurate,
ancient copies, they were able to know what the originals said.
"It is incredible to every man of sense that we [i.e., orthodox
Christians] WOULD HAVE INTRODUCED ANY CORRUPT TEXT INTO THE
SCRIPTURES. FOR WE HAVE EXISTED FROM THE VERY FIRST."
Tertullian, 197 A.D. (Ibid)
"Now what is there in our Scriptures that is contrary to us?
WHAT OF OUR OWN HAVE WE INTRODUCED? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT
WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY AGAIN, OR ELSE ADD TO IT, OR ALTER IT-
in order to restore to its natural soundness anything that
is contrary to it and contained in the Scriptures? What we
are ourselves, that also is what the Scriptures are, and have
been from the beginning." Tertullian, 197 A.D. (Ibid., p. 600)
They were also well aware of corruptions made by HERETICS, and
warned against it:
"For this reason, the heretics have boldly laid their hands
upon the divine Scriptures, ALLEGING THAT THEY HAVE CORRECTED
THEM... And many such copies can be obtained, for their
disciples were very zealous in inserting these 'corrections,'
AS THEY CALL THEM... Nor can they deny that the crimes is theirs,
when the copies have been written with their own hands. NOR DID
THEY RECEIVE SUCH COPIES OF THE SCRIPTURES FROM THOSE BY WHOM
THEY WERE FIRST INSTRUCTED IN THE FAITH. FOR THEY CANNOT PRODUCE
THE ORIGINALS FROM WHICH THEY WERE TRANSCRIBED."
Eusebius citing Caius, 215 A.D. (Ibid., 641)
It was heretics, not believers, who were trying to correct the MSS.
Yet, they failed to do so since the believers had copies transcribed
>from the originals and knew what the ancient readings were. In fact,
believers warned of adding or taking away from the Word:
"If it is nowhere written, then let him fear the woe that comes
on all who add to or take away anything [from the written Word].
Tertullian, 210 A.D. (Ibid., p. 600)
These are citations that Saifullah either deliberately left out or
failed to find. Saifullah continues to repeat the 63% uniformity
amongst the seven editions of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden,
Vogels, Merk, and Bover with the text of Nestle-Aland. He again
fails to inform his readers that these editions do not necessarily
mean that ALL MSS agree only 63% of the time. Aware of this he tires
to debunk the Majority Text reading with its larger uniformity at
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html :
"Previous The Majority Text & The Received Text - What About Them?
It is worthwhile explaining the jargon used in the Bible scholarship.
Since we do not have the Original Text of the Bible, some Bible
scholars went for the case of Majority Text being the 'Original Text'.
The case for the Majority Text of the Bible is based on the apriori
supposition that the majority of the manuscripts must be right.
This case, in an indirect way, can be stated as it is based on the
apriori claim that God would ensure the preservation of the 'Original
Text' in most manuscripts, rather than allow it to be almost lost
and long unknown. But the problem with this school of thought is
that there is no scriptural support. Hence this can at best be
considered as a conjecture. Commenting on the Majority Text after
mentioning some of its grave historical problems[17], David Parker
says:
It owes a great deal also to a kind of un-self-questioning
conservatism. It owes very little indeed to either historical
observation or self-critical scholarship.[18]"
First, I never said that it is the original reading, but rather
that the MT has a higher degree of uniformity then that used by
the editions you cite. Note the following citation found at
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TextTypes.html#ByzText:
"BYZANTINE
Westcott-Hort -- Syrian (also d)
Von Soden -- Kappa (Koine) (K)
Kenyon -- A (a)
Lagrange -- A
Characteristics of the type: WIDESPREAD. Usually regarded as
far-removed from the original documents, but worthy of detailed
study because of the influence it has had on mixed manuscripts.
Marked by smooth and easy readings and by harmonizations, but
rarely indulges in paraphrase or the major expansions seemingly
found in the "Western" text. Derived from other text-types; it
usually preserves the easiest reading. IT RARELY CREATES READINGS. [*42]
"Primary witnesses: A E F G H K M S U V Y G P S etc. (gospels);
H L P 049 056 0142 (Acts); K L 049 056 0142 (Paul, Catholics);
P 046 (Apocalypse). Also found IN THE MASS OF MINUSCULES; OVER 80%
OF MANUSCRIPTS ARE PURELY BYZANTINE, OVER 90% ARE PRIMARILY BYZANTINE,
AND NOT MORE THAN 2% CAN BE CONSIDERED ENTIRELY FREE OF BYZANTINE
MIXTURE."
Note 42 reads:
"42. So Zuntz: "...it seems to me UNLIKELY that the Byzantine
editors EVER ALTERED THE TEXT WITHOUT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE. They
left so many hopelessly difficult places unassailed! Their method,
I submit, was selection RATHER THAN CONJECTURE." (The Text of
the Epistles, p. 55; quoted in part by Colwell in Studies in
Methodology, p. 49).
Secondly, since you quoted Parker's view why didn't include the views
of others who disagree with him if you really wanted to show a fair
assessment of the evidence supporting either the MT or the critical
text as the best. Were you afraid that the sources would debunk your
credibility as a reliable reporter? You continue in the above mentioned
web page to make the following claims:
"The formation of the Received Text was due to an accident and
it was based on the materials on which Erasmus happened to have
when preparing his edition. Textus Receptus is the name by which
the text of Erasmus has been known ever since its publisher
Elzevir characterised it in 1633 in the following words:
"Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil
immutatum aut corruptum damus" [What you have here, then,
is the text which is now universally recognized : we offer
it free of alterations and corruptions].[19]
Unfortunately, the Textus Receptus or the Received Text did not
live upto its reputation. It had serious defects and errors. Many
of them were pointed out to Erasmus by his own contemporaries.
A nineteenth century critic from England called this text as the
least carefully printed book ever published.[20] Due to its defects,
the Textus Receptus enjoyed very little support. Very tersely,
Kurt and Barbara Aland say:
Voices have been raised recently in the United States claiming
superiority of the Textus Receptus over modern editions of the
text, but they are finding little favorable response outside
some limited circles. The wheels of the history will not be
reversed.[21]"
I don't know if you are aware that the Textus Receptus and the Majority
Text are not the same since the former was based on roughly 6 late
Greek MSS whereas the latter forms the majority readings with some
dating back as far as the fourth century. So again your points are
invalid. Furthermore, you seem to not be able to differentiate between
63% uniformity between the MSS and scholars coming up to nearly 99%
of the original. You also fail to distinguish the fact that no
reputable Christian says that the conclusion is an infallible one
but one made by fallible men trying to come to the original reading.
This is a lot more than we can say for the Quran with the loss of
verses and its hundreds of variants.
Since you are also keen on citing textual critics, let us see what
their conclusions are:
Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the
British Museum, stated about the New Testament,
"The interval, then, between the dates of original composition
and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in
fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that
the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were
written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the
general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be
regarded as finally established." (Sir Fredric Kenyon, The Bible
and Archaeology [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940], 288ff.)
Kenyon goes on to rightly conclude
"... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come
down to us is substantially sound." (Kenyon, The Bible, as cited
in McDowell, Evidence, p. 49.)
B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the editors of The New Testament in
Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such
as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with
proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion
still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth
part of the whole New Testament." (B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A. Hort,
eds., New Testament in Original Greek, 1881, vol. II, 2.)
Kenyon concludes,
"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text
of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the
New Testament." (Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
[New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941]: 23, as cited in McDowell,
Evidence, p. 45.)
So Saifullah, seeing that you cite text critics, are you now willing
to accept their conclusions? If not, then why do you twist their
words and give a false impression that these scholars deny the
preservation of the Bible when they do believe in its preservation?
Finally, you failed to note that the Quran has no critical text in
which scholars have compared the extant MSS to see how much they
diverge and how much they agree, trying to arrive at the best reading.
The little research made available to them has debunked your belief
in a perfect, variant-free text since thousands of variants do exist
as evidence by Muslim books such as Kitab al-Masahif, as well as
the evidence from the Yemeni Qurans and the like. So before you even
try to attack the credibility of the Bible, try to sort out your own
text tradition.
I'm planning on writing a response in the distant future to your
articles, or better yet, link to these posts for all to see where
the evidence lies. Until then, the serious seeker can compare the
evidence and see where it leads at the following sites:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Text/
To summarize this portion, we have found that textual criticism,
manuscripts, and the Quran supports the preservation of the Holy
Bible. We have also found that the Islamic traditions as a whole,
the available MSS, and the little research afforded Text critics
have proven that the Quran has suffered a loss of its contents
and has many variants which need to be sorted out in order to
arrive at the best reading possible. Until then, Saifullah
cannot even tell us if he even has 90% of the Quran intact or
if he has nearly 99% original reading available to him.
> Trinitarians truly believe that the Father is God, the Son is God and 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.
I did not say it does not condemn shirk, but rather it does not
know what Trinitarians believe. So, instead of attacking strawman,
deal with what I actually say.
> Finally if you want to do some mathematics, three distinct entities in no
> way become one undistinct entity without loosing their distinct character.
> Three can't be one and one can't be three.
A Trinitarian does not say that they are three distinct entities
making one distinct entity who has one character. Rather, the One
Being of God has three centers of consciousness who, although
distinct persons, are inseparably One. This implies distinction
in personalities, but not in nature or essence. Furthermore, since
when is God bound by human logic and mathematics? Is that the God
you believe in, a Being who is limited by the very limitations
and laws He has placed on creation? If you do, then He is not
the God I follow since my God is greater than all things and
is not limited by the laws he instituted upon the universe.
I thought you say Allahu Akbar, God is greater?
> Oh! I am sorry I do not believe in your faith and neither the carnality
> associated with it and neither does the Qur'an.
Nor do I believe in the Quranic error that sonship is to be
understood in a carnal sense. Thank you for admitting that
the Quran does understand it purely in a carnal manner, again
exposing its authorship.
> And by the way, you religion from the Islamic point of view is 'kufr' and
> abrogated by Islam not to mention your 'Bible'!
Are you sure its kufr? Well, let us find out. According to
S. 5:82-83 the nearest to Muslims in love are the Christians
since they weep when they hear the verses of the Quran. Yusuf
Ali believes this to be referring to the Abyssinian Christians.
According to Ibn Hisham's edition of Ibn Ishaq's Sira Rasulullah,
there is mention of the Negus of Abyssinia weeping upon hearing
the verses of the Quran. Accordingly, this occurred at the
instigation of certain Qurayshites who had come seeking for
the Muslims who had migrated there at the orders of Muhammad,
seeking asylum. The Qurayshites informed the Negus that the
Muslims believed Jesus was only a slave. Upon asking the Muslims
what they believed about Jesus, instead of being up front with
the Negus on their denials of his divinity and crucifixion
they recited, "The Messiah Jesus was a messenger of God, and
His Word that he conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit proceeding
>from him" (S. 4:171) Hearing this, he granted them asylum and
protection. Earlier, they recited for him Sura of Mary which
upon hearing it, the Negus started crying. (Life of Muhammad,
[Light of Life P.O. Box 13, A-9503; Village, Austria, 1997],
pp. 123-126)
Two questions naturally come to mind. First, why did the Muslims
use deception and not tell the Abyssinians what they really
believed about Jesus, instead of focusing on those aspects
which were in agreement with the Christian faith of the Negus?
Secondly, if S. 5:82-83 is referring to this incident, this
is a strong proof from the Quran which upholds Christians
who believed in the deity of Christ and his crucifixion as
those nearest to Muslims. So Saifullah, could you please
explain how in one place those who believe in the deity of
Jesus are blasphemers (5:72), whereas in another place they
are upheld as those nearest to Muslims and are men well
learned?
Finally, I leave you with the following citations for you to
examine and give us an answer as to how you can say the Bible
is corrupt when these traditions presuppose the integrity of
the biblical text? Pay due attention especially to what Ibn
Abbas says. And, please, when you respond, do not repeat the
same tiresome and weak arguments since I will not respond to
them. And if you do, it only proves that Islam cannot defend
itself, whereas Christianity passes all the tests put to it.
In the service of my Lord and Savior Jesus forever.
Sam
Somewhat similar are the traditions found in Mishkat ul-Masabih Book I,
ch. VI, p. 49; Book XX, ch. I, p. 892:
Jabir told how `Umar b. al-Khattab brought God's messenger
a copy of the TORAH saying, "Messenger of God, this is a copy
of the TORAH." When he received no reply he began to read to
the obvious displeasure of God's messenger, so Abu Bakr said,
"Confound you, do you not see how God's messenger is looking?"
So `Umar looked at God's messenger's face and said, "I seek
refuge in God from the anger of God and His messenger. We
are satisfied with God as Lord, with Islam as religion, and
with Muhammad as Prophet." Then God's messenger said, "By Him
in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, were Moses to appear to you
and you were to follow him and abandon me, you would err from
the right way. Were he alive and came in touch with my prophetic
mission he would follow me." Darimi transmitted it.
Salman said he read in the TORAH that the blessing of food consists
in ablution after it, and when he mentioned that to the Prophet he
said, "The blessing of food consists in ablution before it and
ablution after if." Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud transmitted it.
Here also Muhammad neither forbids the reading of the Torah nor
denies its existence. His silence really confirms its existence.
Likewise, according to Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XXVI, ch. XXXIX,
pp. 1371, 1372:
Khaithama b. Abu Sabra said: I came to Medina and asked God
to grant me a good companion to sit with and He granted me
Abu Huraira. I sat with him and told him I had asked God to
grant me a good companion to sit with and that he suited me.
He asked where I came from and I replied that I belonged to
al-Kufa and had come desiring and seeking good. He then said,
"Do you not have among you Sa'd b. Malik whose prayers are
answered, Ibn Mas'ud who looked after God's messenger's water
for ablution and his sandals, Hudhaifa who was God's messenger's
confident, `Ammar to whom God gave protection from the devil
at the tongue of His Prophet, and Salman who was a believer
in the two Books? meaning the INJIL and the Qur'an. Tirmidhi
translated it.
The following tradition is also found in Mishkat al-Masabih,
Book II, ch. I, pp. 62,63:
Ziyad b. Labid said: The Prophet mentioned a matter, saying,
"that will be at the time when knowledge departs." I asked,
"How can knowledge depart when we recite the Qur'an and
teach it to our children and they will teach it to their
children up till the Day of Resurrection?" He replied,
"I am astonished at you, Ziyad. I thought you were the most
learned man in Medina. Do not these Jews and Christians
READ THE TORAH AND THE INJIL WITHOUT KNOWING A THING ABOUT
THEIR CONTENTS?" Ahmad and Ibn Majah transmitted it, Tirmidhi
transmitted something similar from him, as did Darimi from
Abu Umama.
Khadijah took him to her cousin Waraqa ben Naufal. He had
accepted Christianity during the Age of Ignorance AND HE
USED TO WRITE THE HEBREW SCRIPTURE AND THE INJIL FROM HEBREW
as God granted him strength. Waraqa had become very aged
and was bereft of his sight. Bukhari Vol. 1:3
This tradition indicates that "the Scripture" (al-kitab) probably
the Torah-Old Testament and the Gospel-New Testament, were available
and were even known in isolated areas of Arabia."
And finally, this one found at
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html:
"Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitaab Al-Tawheed, Baab Qawlu Allah Ta'ala,
"Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth" (i.e. in
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book "The Oneness of God", the Chapter on
Surat Al-Borooj (no. 85), Verses 21, 22 saying, "Nay this
is a Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.")
we find in a footnote between 9.642 and 643:
"They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its
meaning." Yet no one is able to change even a single word
from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret
the word wrongly. [... and he continues to speak about how
the Qur'an is preserved ...]
This is the Tafseer (commentary) of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, one of
the Sahaba (companions) and Mohammed's cousin. His opinions
(because he is a Sahabi (companion)) are held to be above the
opinions and commentaries of all other Sheikhs who are not Sahaba.
Since Ibn Abbas' above reference to "They corrupt the word"
quotes part of Sura 4:46, it is not only a commentary on
Sura 85:22, but also on the meaning of the Quranic charge
against the Jews of corrupting the scriptures."