Infancy naratives.
vze2...@verizon.net
with Christian scripture. Does Islam not accept the validity of
Christian and Jewish scripture?
Maria Hansmann
news:9u8arn$4rl$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I noticed in the Q'uran that the infancy naratives for Jesus are at odds
> with Christian scripture. Does Islam not accept the validity of
> Christian and Jewish scripture?
>
>
Islam teaches that the bible and the torah have been corrupted. While they
are still valid, they should not be used for guidiance by muslims because of
their errors. Muslims believe that the infancy narrative is one example for
the errors.
salam,
MH.
AbuFour
>Christian and Jewish scripture?
>
Islam teaches that the earlier people given scriptures (e.g., Jews and
Christians) did alter them so that many a distortion entered their teachings
(for Biblical confirmation of this, see Jeremiah 5:5 and Jeremiah 7:21).
But in what "major" ways do you find the Islamic narrative of Jesus' (as) birth
to differ from the Gospel account?
Rx
>with Christian scripture. Does Islam not accept the validity of
>Christian and Jewish scripture?
They say that the bible was corrupted. But, that all does not really matter.
The gospels themseves conflict with each other. So, you will need to narrow it
down a little.
R-x
Moataz Emam
What do you think?
--
Moataz H. Emam
The Sanity Inspector
> Jewish and Christian scripture are written by men. The Quran was dictated by >God.
By he angel Gabriel, or Gibreel, I think you mean.
Dr. Christoph Heger
iqr...@yahoo.com (Iqra) in her/his message of 10 Dec 2001 07:17:19 GMT
contradicted my view that the Koran does not know the later theory of
taHriyf, i.e. the tempering by the Jews and Christians with their Holy
Scriptures. He quoted:
> "Therefore, woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands,
> then say, "This is from God," seeking a cheap price. Woe to them for
> what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain. "
> 2:79
I can't see that here Jews or Christians or Jewish or Christian Holy
Scriptures are mentioned.
On the other side, there are verses in the Koran which definitely
mention these Holy Scriptures and advice people to look into them.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > I noticed in the Q'uran that the infancy naratives for Jesus are at odds
> > with Christian scripture. Does Islam not accept the validity of
> > Christian and Jewish scripture?
The Jewish and Christian scriptures are themselves at odd with each other.
One mans' scripture is other man's apocrypha. Try looking at the
differences in the number of books of Roman Catholic, Protestant,
Anglican, Ethiopic, Coptic and Syriac Christians' scriptures. If they can
resolve the issue between themselves about what constitutes an "inspired"
scripture, they can then approach Muslims for an argument.
The presence of infancy narratives in the Qur'an does not mean that they
never happened. The Christians in Najran during the advent of Islam had no
problems with that and it would not be surprising that many of the
Christian sects in Middle East had their own "scripture" which by modern
standard becomes apocrypha. We are back to same problems with the
Judeo-Christian scripture.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Johnny
> Greetings to all,
>
>
> > "Therefore, woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands,
> > then say, "This is from God," seeking a cheap price. Woe to them for
> > what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain. "
> > 2:79
>
> I can't see that here Jews or Christians or Jewish or Christian Holy
> Scriptures are mentioned.
The verse is referring to the Jews and their tampering of the
scripture in their possession.
Ibn Abbas (RTA) says:
"Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:
Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the
Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to
His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite
it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you
that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands
what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed
Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit
thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you
sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen
any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850
"The great commentator At-Tabari (d 923) explains that this verse
[2:79] refers to the description of Muhammad (na't Muhammad) that was
included in the original divine version of the Torah, but that Jews
had "removed from its place." He also adds a Hadith saying by 'Uthman
stating that Jews ADDED TO THE TORAH WHAT THEY LIKED AND DELETED FROM
IT WHAT THEY HATED, for example Muhammad's name. Thus, they brought
God's anger upon theselves, and He recalled or took back (rafa'a) to
heaven parts of the Torah."
[Hava Lazarus-Yafeh. "Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible
Criticism." pgs. 20 - 21 Princeton University Press. 1992 ISBN.
0-691-07398-8]
>
> On the other side, there are verses in the Koran which definitely
> mention these Holy Scriptures and advice people to look into them.
No, there are no verses in the Quran which talk about the Bible, the
NT or the OT. The Quran asks the Jews and Christians to follow their
own scriptures because despite their corruption they still contained
enough truth in them to lead a person to Islam. Thus had they
followed their own scriptures they would have had no other choice but
to accept Islam, there was still enough truth left in their
scriptures. Yet the people of the book choose not to follow that
which they themselves accepted as the word of God.
Johnny.
Moataz Emam
> By he angel Gabriel, or Gibreel, I think you mean.
God to Gabriel, Gabriel to Mohammed. The author is God.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> I can't see that here Jews or Christians or Jewish or Christian Holy
> Scriptures are mentioned.
>
> On the other side, there are verses in the Koran which definitely
> mention these Holy Scriptures and advice people to look into them.
005.014 "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."
003.078 "There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As
they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book;
and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a
lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!"
Where the Book here is the Torah as can been seen when examining the Reasons of
Revelation of this last verse.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Dr. Christoph Heger
Moataz Emam <em...@physics.umass.edu> on 16 Dec 2001 23:02:40 GMT
referred to my comment on the medieval theory of Jewish and Christian
Holy Scriptures being distorted:
> > Islam does so for some centuries. But it should be remembered that it
> > hasn't done always so. The Koran does not know this theory.
arguing:
> Sorry that is not true.
No, I regret, it's definitely true. I guess we have had this argument on
sri before.
Now Moataz Emam gave some quotes from the Koran:
> 005.014 "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:
> ..."
Please realize that no forgery of the text of the Scriptures, but simply
forgetting, presumably meant as selective use of the Scripture is
reproached!
> 003.078 "There is among them a section who distort the Book with their
> tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it
> is no part of the Book; ..."
Again nobody here is blamed for forgery of the text of the Scriptures.
Only a selective quotation and deceitful interpretation of the holy
texts is reproached. What this passage of the Koran has in mind most
probably is the custom of the Jewish rabbis to recite not the Hebrew
text of the Scripture but the traditional commentary which is in Aramaic
(a language which contrary to Hebrew their audience may have been able
to understand).
So the later Islamic theory of Jewish and Christian forgery of their
actual Scriptures is alien to the Koran. On the contrary it confirms the
previous scriptures, advicing Jews and Christians to look into their
Scriptures, and so do some early hadiths.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
chollanam...@mindspring.com
shared with usenet this thought:
>The Sanity Inspector wrote:
>> By he angel Gabriel, or Gibreel, I think you mean.
>
>God to Gabriel, Gabriel to Mohammed. The author is God.
But isn't there a verse or two in there giving Muhammad permission to
revoke revealed verses and receive new ones? Why couldn't God just
give the correct verse the first time?
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam
Myshalom777
>
If God spoke *directly* to the other prophets (like Moses for instance) why
did He use Gabriel as an intermediary in the case of Mohamed ? Doesn't that
make the other prophets superior to Mohamed ?
Cecil
Moataz Emam
> But isn't there a verse or two in there giving Muhammad permission to
> revoke revealed verses and receive new ones? Why couldn't God just
> give the correct verse the first time?
Not quite, but close. There are verses in the Quran that does revoke older verses
(not Mohammed revoking them). The reasons vary. Remember that the Quran was revealed
over a period of 23 or 24 years. Some issues were so inherent in the life of Arabs at
the time that they had to be changed gradually not suddenly.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> If God spoke *directly* to the other prophets (like Moses for instance) why
> did He use Gabriel as an intermediary in the case of Mohamed ? Doesn't that
> make the other prophets superior to Mohamed ?
I do not know the answer to this question. What I know is that all prophets are on
the same footing with each other in the eyes of God. Why did He choose to speak
directly to Moses but not to Jesus, Mohammed or Abraham? Did Abraham speak directly
to God? Did Jesus? Only God knows. And at some point one cannot guess the mind of
Johnny
> Greetings to all,
>
> Moataz Emam <em...@physics.umass.edu> on 16 Dec 2001 23:02:40 GMT
> referred to my comment on the medieval theory of Jewish and Christian
> Holy Scriptures being distorted:
It is not a mideval "theory". The Quran clearly says that the
previous scriptures were corrupted in 2:79. But you say they are not
referring to the previous scriptures. May I ask what new perverted
star trek theory you have in mind? Is 2:79 referring to the Hindu
scriptures? To the Marsian aliens and the scripture in their
possession? Just read the entire passage from 2:75 onwards, its clear
what BOOK it is referring to, that is the JEWISH SCRIPTURE. I
understand your limitations of grasping and comprehending when it
comes to the obvious, but trust me, you don't need too much brain
power here! :)
>
> > > Islam does so for some centuries. But it should be remembered that it
> > > hasn't done always so. The Koran does not know this theory.
>
> arguing:
>
> > Sorry that is not true.
>
> No, I regret, it's definitely true.
No I further regret its definately not true.
> I guess we have had this argument on
> sri before.
Sure, and we have seen the distortion of sources by Sam Shamoun and
Co. on this topic.
>
> Now Moataz Emam gave some quotes from the Koran:
>
> > 005.014 "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:
> > ..."
>
> Please realize that no forgery of the text of the Scriptures, but simply
> forgetting, presumably meant as selective use of the Scripture is
> reproached!
If you have a scripture, and then you FORGET PARTS OF IT, what are you
left with? And then the Quran also says woe to them who write the book
with their own hands and then say this is from Allah. So we have bits
of the scripture, parts of it FORGOTTON and the scribes who write them
down being CONDEMNED. It does not take an einstien to figure out what
is goin on.
>
> > 003.078 "There is among them a section who distort the Book with their
> > tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it
> > is no part of the Book; ..."
>
> Again nobody here is blamed for forgery of the text of the Scriptures.
Yes, they are blamed for the distortion of the book with their
TONGUES, in 2:79 they are condemned for writing falsehood in the name
of God and then saying its from God, and then in 5:48 Muslism are
commanded to rule by the Quran and use it as MUHAYMIN over the
previous scriptures. Duh?
> Only a selective quotation and deceitful interpretation of the holy
> texts is reproached.
It is THIS which is being condemned in THIS verse.
>
> So the later Islamic theory of Jewish and Christian forgery of their
> actual Scriptures is alien to the Koran.
No, it is not a "later theory". The Quran mentions the corruption of
the previous scriptures here:
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then
say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to
them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they
earn thereby.
2:79
> On the contrary it confirms the
> previous scriptures, advicing Jews and Christians to look into their
> Scriptures, and so do some early hadiths.
On the contrary the Quran only confirms the ORIGINAL PRESTINE
revelations, and the Jews and Christians of Muhammed's (PBUH) time
admitted that Muhammed (PBUH) is clearly mentioned in their
scriptures, thats why had they followed whatever scripture they had in
their possession they would have had no other choice but to accept
Islam. With regards to Hadeeth:
Ibn Abbas says the previous scriptures have been corrupted:
"Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about
anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's
Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and
unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture
(Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and
wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,'
to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to
you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have
never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been
revealed to you!"
[Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461]
"Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
'Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask
the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which
Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from
Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the
people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and
distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This
is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won't the knowledge
that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have
never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an )
which has been revealed to you."
[Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614]
"Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:
Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the
Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to
His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite
it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you
that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands
what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed
Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit
thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you
sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen
any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."
[Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850]
"Narrated 'Ikrima:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about
their Books while you have Allah's Book (the Qur'an) which is the most
recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure
undistorted form?"
[Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613]
chao
Johnny
>
> Kind regards,
> Christoph Heger
Altway
--------------------------------------------
The Quran accepts the Scriptures (or Teachings or Word of God) given to the
Moses (saw), David (saw) and Jesus (saw). The ones given to Moses is known
as Torah, Zabur is given to David and that given to Jesus is known as Injil.
It is necessary to note that the modern Old Testament contains a many books
written long after the death of Moses. It is not the same as the Torah.
The New Testament contains books written (allegedly) by Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John and many letters by Paul.
The Injil refers to the teachings of Jesus (saw) not to the NT. These may
well be contained in the Christian Literature but it is not possible unaided
to determine what was revealed to Jesus and taught by him and what was added
by lesser men and what is true or false, useful or useless, good or bad,
appropriate or inappropriate for times long after him..
Some Christian missionaries have argued as follows:-
The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands
faith in it. The following verses are quoted to prove this:-
2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94;
21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11
This, they say, proves that :-
(a) These texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to
the people of Muhammad's day. 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
(b) A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God.
2:136; 4:136; 29:46
(c) The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations 2:136
(d) The Quran claims that no one can change the Word of God. 6:34; 10:34
(e) Many Muslim scholars have accepted the text of the Gospels. This
includes al-Tabari, al-Ghakhiz, Bukhari, al-Masudi, Ali Husain Bin Sina,
al-Ghazzali, Ibn-Khaldun, Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan, Fakhruddin Razi and so on.
(f) The Prophet (saw) himself accepted the bible as in the following
Hadith:-
"They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a
woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the
Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the
Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him
and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who
revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a
young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the
tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No.
4431)."
So, they ask, why do Muslims believe that the Bible is corrupted?
The above story, they say, proves that:-
1. That prophet Muhammad had an authentic copy of the Torah that was widely
used in his times. The Jews did not protest that Muhammad's copy was any
different than their own. This copy was God's infallible word. There was no
corruption in the Scriptures, Allah's inerrant Word.
2. The very fact that he called the Scripture for reference should be an
example to every Muslim today.
3. The very fact that the prophet said, "I believed in thee and in Him Who
revealed thee" should be an exhortation to all of us to believe in all the
Bible, following his example.
It is asserted by Christian missionaries that Muslims ought, therefore, to
accept the Christian scriptures and become Christians.
But, it could be argued that if the Quran is true and these Christians
accept this, then they should follow the implications of this belief and
become Muslims. If they do not believe it then they must also reject the
Bible. The third possibility is that they are hypocrites and choose to say
or believe whatever they find convenient.
The question that ought to have occurred to them is: Why do these Muslim who
accept the Bible remain Muslim. The Prophet may only have wished to judge
the people by their own source of values and laws and respected their
beliefs.
They also tell us that there are contradictions between the teachings of the
Quran and the Bible. This would imply that the Quran contradict itself if it
affirms the Bible, and should be rejected for that reason. But if it is,
then it cannot be taken for proof of the veracity of the Bible. But if the
contradiction is removed by accepting the statements supporting the Bible
and rejecting the others, then it is equally possible to do the reverse - to
reject the statements affirming the Bible and accepting all the other.
But quite apart from these logical absurdities, there is another way of
looking at things. The Quran tells us:-
"But woe to those who write out the Book with their own hands and say "This
is from Allah"; to buy therewith a little price! And woe to them for what
their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain!." 2:79
"Whatever verse We may annul or cause thee to forget, We will bring a better
one than it, or one like it; do you not know that Allah has power over all?"
2:106
"And because they broke their covenant, We cursed them, and placed hardness
in their hearts. They perverted the words from their contexts, and forgot a
portion of what they were admonished." 5:13
"And of those who say: Verily we are Christians, We have (also) taken a
covenant. But they have forgotten a goodly portion of the message; wherefore
have We excited amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection,
when Allah will inform them of what they have done." 5:14
"O ye people of the Book! (Christians and Jews and by analogy others who
have been given Scriptures) Now has Our Messenger come to you to expound
unto you much of what ye used to hide in the Book, and forgiving (or
abolishing) much. Now has come unto you light from Allah, and a perspicuous
Book . "5:15
"We never sent a Messenger save with the language of his people, that he
might clarify the message to them. Then Allah leads whom He will astray, and
guides whom He will; and He is the Mighty, the Wise." 14:4
"Now have We sent down to you a Book in which is a reminder for you; have ye
then no sense?" 21:10
"Naught is said unto thee (O Muhammad) but what was said unto the messengers
before thee; surely your Lord is the Lord of Forgiveness and the Lord of
dire Retribution." 41:43
"Lo! It (the Quran) is nothing but a reminder for all peoples (nations)."
38:88
"Those to whom We have brought the Book know this (revelation) as they know
their own sons - those who ruin their souls do not believe." 6:20
The Islamic position is, therefore, as follows:-
(a) It is not so much that the text has been corrupted, though additions and
subtractions have certainly been made and also mistranslation of the
original text. For instance, the verse in the King John Version of the Bible
which justifies the Trinity, 1 John 5:7, has been dropped as not genuine
>from modern translations. The story of the woman about to be stoned for
adultery but forgiven by Jesus (John 8:3-11), which is used by some
Christians to excuse adultery and fornication has also been discarded.
(b) The Bible has been misinterpreted. For instance, John, Luke and Paul
knew very well that the phrase "son of God" had a symbolic meaning, that it
referred to those who were led by the Spirit and Word of God and obeyed it
(John 1:12-13, Romans 8:14 and Luke 1:35 "The Holy thing that shall be born
of thee (Mary) shall be called the son of God". Not "shall be the son of
God.") But Christians take this literally and make Jesus into God. The
phrase was also used for others besides Jesus - for instance, Adam (Luke
3:38). In the Old Testament we read "I have said: ye are gods and all of you
are children of the Most High." Psalms 82:6. But the Jews did not understand
this as meaning that they were God.
(c) Many man made doctrines have been added to the religion. This includes
the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and Vicarious Atonement.
(d) Much that is essential to the religion has been ignored. This includes
the need to make efforts.
(e) The Quran has replaced the previous scriptures in the sense that it has
a new formulation and methodology for the new age and for Muslims. For
instance, the symbolism of "son of God" has been replaced because of
misunderstandings, by that of "servant of God" and "Messenger of God". This
does not imply that the phrase "son of God" understood symbolically is
wrong. It does not imply that the methods, rites and religious laws of the
past are wrong.
"Unto every nation have We given sacred rites which they are to perform; so
let them not then dispute about the matter, but summon thou unto thy Lord;
verily, thou (Muhammad) indeed followest right guidance." 22:67
"And unto thee (Muhammad) have We revealed the Book in truth, verifying what
was before it, and preserving it. Judge then between them by what Allah has
revealed, and follow not their lusts (prejudices, fantasies), turning away
>from what is given to thee of the truth. For each of you have We appointed a
Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one
nation, but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore,
vie with one another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will
then inform you concerning that wherein ye dispute." 5:48
It is this, which creates the disagreement between Islam and Christianity.
The Quran and Bible appear to disagree in the minds of those who
misinterpret both.
The Christian missionaries have not been honest and have quoted only those
things that seemed to support them and ignored other things.
Here is what the Prophet Muhammad said :-
Ziyad asked the Prophet, "How can knowledge depart when we recite the Quran
and teach it to our children and they will teach it to their children up
till the day of resurrection?". The Prophet 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 Bible without knowing a thing about
their contents?"
When the Prophet was asked how they should take the Torah and Gospels, he
said "Neither believe nor disbelieve."
Whatever was true and required of Muslims to believe and follow is in the
Quran. The Quran is a self-consistent system designed for the new times and
does not require other Scriptures to either complement its teachings or
justify them. This does not, however, mean that these other scriptures may
not have some value. Otherwise they would not have been mentioned. A study
of them can often deepen an understanding of the Quran, especially when
there is a dialogue between faiths. But these other scriptures will have to
be interpreted in the Quranic framework, provided, of course, that has been
understood correctly and not itself distorted by alien frameworks of
thought.
"The Jews will not be satisfied with thee, nor yet the Christians, until
thou followest their creed. Say: Allah's guidance is the (sufficient,
correct or only) guidance; and if thou were to follow their desires after
the knowledge that has come to thee, thou hast not then from Allah a patron
or a help. They to whom We have brought the Book and who read it as it
should be studied, they are the ones that believe therein; and whoso rejects
faith therein, it is they who are the losers." 2:120-121
It is not difficult to show that some of the doctrines taught by the
Christian Church are contradicted by the teachings of Jesus. He taught the
following:-
"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but he that doeth the Will of my Father which is in heaven. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
"Now we know that God hears not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of
God and does His will, him He hears." John 9:31
Where does Jesus say that salvation depends on Jesus being crucified?
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know Thee the only True God and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent...while I was with them in the world I kept
them in Thy Name..." John 17:6,12
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
Matthew 19:17
Jesus did not do or speak of himself but what God instructed: - John 6:38,
57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49
"I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is
just because I seek not mine own will, but the Will of the Father which hath
sent me." John 6:30
Where does Jesus say he is God and part of a Trinity?
If it is asserted that other verses can be interpreted as implying that
Jesus is God, then we must suppose that they contradict the above teachings
of Jesus. Either he or the Bible would then be self-contradictory and can be
rejected. The third possibility is that things that come from a higher
source have been misinterpreted by the lower minds.
Another possible way of resolving the dispute is to point out that the Quran
defines "Allah" as Eternal and All-pervasive. Jesus does not fit this
definition. The word "Allah" is not used as loosely in the Quran as the word
"god" is used in the Old and New Testaments.
The purpose of religion is to facilitate the development of man. As man
develops Religion also develops. The Quran tells us that some verses are
abrogated by others and that if some verses are forgotten then similar or
better ones are revealed. This evolution is seen in the way the consumption
of alcohol was first restricted and then forbidden. It can be see as between
Hebrewism, Christianity and Islam - the emphasis in the first was on Law, in
the second on Love and in Islam on Truth.
There were things which the people of previous dispensations could not
understand as we see also from the words of Jesus to his disciples (John
16:12-14). They had to be taught according to what they were able to
understand. But a time comes when this must be superceded. This is similar
to the way a subject is taught in schools and colleges - the teaching
becomes more sophisticated the higher one goes and the more simplistic
explanations have to be abandoned.
It is perfectly possible that in the past it was necessary for people to
believe that their messenger was a god and that they required his death and
resurrection before they would obey objective principles (the Word of God) -
The idea of his sacrifice created the required love for him and the
required guilt feeling ( not to follow his instructions was to betray him).
But this indirect method was no longer acceptable, especially when this idea
degenerated into the belief that belief in the sacrifice itself resulted in
salvation without appropriate works.
It is, therefore, correct to state simply this:- That the Islamic doctrine
and practices replace the Christian one because the former is more effective
and the latter has become relatively obsolete, just as the Christian one
replaced the Hebrew one.
----------<O>----------
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
Johnny
> Views of Islam - 17. The Bible in the Quran
>
> The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands
> faith in it. The following verses are quoted to prove this:-
> 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94;
> 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11
None of these verses talk about the Bible, they don't even mention the
Bible.
>
> This, they say, proves that :-
>
> (a) These texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to
> the people of Muhammad's day. 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
None of these verses presuppose any such thing.
>
> (b) A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God.
> 2:136; 4:136; 29:46
Yes we do, we are however not oblisged to believe in man made
insertations and interpolations.
>
> (c) The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations 2:136
>
> (d) The Quran claims that no one can change the Word of God. 6:34; 10:34
But anyone can take a pen and paper and write on any scripture,
whether it be the Quran, the Torah or whatever scripture. One needs
to look at the efforts made by the followers of these scriptures to
protect them from tampering. As for the Bible, it is the Biblical
scholars themselves who admit changes additions and deletions were
made to its next. They aren't mad Muslims.
>
> (e) Many Muslim scholars have accepted the text of the Gospels. This
> includes al-Tabari, al-Ghakhiz, Bukhari, al-Masudi, Ali Husain Bin Sina,
> al-Ghazzali, Ibn-Khaldun, Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan, Fakhruddin Razi and so on.
Tabari didn't accept the text of the Jewish Christians scriptures to
be authentic. read his commentry on 5:48 where he states that the
Quran is muhaymin over the previsous scriptures, which means whatever
agrees with the Quran is accepted and that which disagrees with the
Quran is rejected. This OBVIOUSLY means the previous scriptures are
corrupted. read also his commentry on 2:79
"The great commentator At-Tabari (d 923) explains that this verse
[2:79] refers to the description of Muhammad (na't Muhammad) that was
included in the original divine version of the Torah, but that Jews
had "removed from its place." He also adds a Hadith saying by 'Uthman
stating that Jews ADDED TO THE TORAH WHAT THEY LIKED AND DELETED FROM
IT WHAT THEY HATED, for example Muhammad's name. Thus, they brought
God's anger upon theselves, and He recalled or took back (rafa'a) to
heaven parts of the Torah."
[Hava Lazarus-Yafeh. "Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible
Criticism." pgs. 20 - 21 Princeton University Press. 1992 ISBN.
0-691-07398-8]
Did Imam Ghazalli accept the previous scriptures as authentic and
untampered? Well as usuall another lie by the missionaries, for which
they do not cite any proof and evidence. A simple search on the
internet yealded the following statements by Imam Ghazali. Imam
Ghazali believes Islam abrogates all previous religions:
"10) THE PROOF OF THE MESSENGERHOOD OF THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS
The tenth principle: Is that Allah - the Exalted - has sent Prophet
Muhammad - the praise and peace be upon him - as the seal of the
prophets and as an abrogator of all previous Religions before him; the
religions of the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians (a
Judaeo-Christian sect).
[http://www.mosque.com/faith.html "The Foundations of the Islamic
Belief
" by Al Ghazali (died 505/1111) Foreword by Professor Hasan El Fatih
Dean of Umm Durman Islamic University Dean of The InterActive islamic
College]
Imam Ghazali also states:
"Allah sent the unlettered, of Quraish, Prophet Muhammad - praise and
peace be upon him - with His Message for Arabs and non-Arabs alike, to
the jinn and humanity. Therefore Allah superseded other religions by
the Religion of Prophet Muhammad - praise and peace be upon him -
except that which He confirmed amongst them.
He favored Prophet Muhammad over all other prophets and made him the
master of mankind, and declared incomplete any profession of faith
which attests to Oneness, which is " There is no god except Allah, "
unless it is followed by the witness to the Messenger, which is your
saying, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." He obligated all nations
to believe in everything he informed of the affairs of here and the
Hereafter.
Allah will not accept the belief of any one (worshipper) until he
believes in that which the Prophet informed of the affairs that occur
after death, the first of which is the question of the angels Munkar
and Nakeer. These are two awesome and terrifying beings who will make
the deceased sit up in the grave, both soul and body; they will ask
him about the Oneness of Allah and about the Message, asking, "Who is
your Lord, and what is your Religion, and who is your prophet?" They
are also known as the two examiners of the grave and their questions
are considered as the first trial after death."
[http://www.masud.co.uk "The Foundations of the Islamic Belief" by Al
Ghazali (died 505/1111)vi. Speech (B) The meaning of the second
phrase of witnessing which is the witnessing for the messengers and
their message. ]
The above shows the abrogation of the previous religions, and
*obviously* their books by the Quran. Now to the corruption of the
previous scriptures:
Imam Ghazali states:
"And that the Koran, the original Torah, the original Gospel of Jesus,
and the original Psalms are His Books sent down upon His Messengers,
peace be upon them."
[http://www.masud.co.uk The Foundations of the Islamic Belief by Al
Ghazali (died 505/1111)vi. Speech ]
If Imam Ghazali, as misisonaries allege, believes and "honours" the
textual integrity of the "Bible", then what is the point in using such
a terminology as: "ORIGINAL Torah" and "ORIGNAL Gospel" and the
"ORIGINAL Psalms"? Why would Imam Ghaxali use such a terminology had
he believed that the previous scriptures were textually reliable,
prestine, authentic and untampered? Clearly, the above statement by
Imam Ghazali shows other wise, that he also believes that the previous
scriptures have been tampered and corrupted and that the ORIGINAL
Torah, ORIGINAL Injeel and the ORIGINAL Psalms are Allah's Books,
which Allah revealed to His Messengers. This is just plain and simple
commonsense, which missionaries fail to use.
I also came accross the following by Imam Ghazali which has been
translated into English and is available online:
"Allah, the Highest, revealed to Jesus in the original* Scriptures:
Say to the Israelites: 'Whosoever fasts for My Pleasure I will make
his body sound and his reward great.'"
* Allah confirms that the Scriptures of the Bible have been tampered
with for material gain. "
[http://www.svmmvmbonvm.org/rarejesus.htm "The Rare Sayings of Jesus"
Translated from Aramaic into Arabic by al-Ghazali (died 505/1111)
Translated from Arabic into English by Shaykh Ahmad Darwish Link>The
Mosque of the Internet http://www.mosque.com/ This book was written in
Arabic by Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, or Algazel as he was known to
medieval Europe (died 505/1111). ]
More interesting quotes from the same source:
"In the original, unaltered, Bible it was written: 'Son of Adam, I
created you and sustained you but you worshipped someone other than
Me. Son of Adam, I invite you and you run away from Me. I remember
you, but you forget Me. Son of Adam, do you return and sleep wherever
you like?'"
[ibid]
"It is written in the original, unaltered Bible: 'As you decline in
morality you will be charged
and with the scale with which you measure your measure will be
fulfilled.'"
"It is written in the original, unaltered Bible: 'Do not seek the
knowledge of that which you do not know until you practice that which
you know.'"
[ibid]
So *obviously*, after reading the above, no person who knows basic
most elementry English would dare say that Imam Ghazali accepted the
Jewish and Christian scriptures as 100% authentic, preserved, genuine
and prestine. According to Imam Ghazali, Muslims (him including!) only
believe and accept the *****ORIGINAL***** Tawrah, *****ORIGINAL*****
Injeel and the *****ORIGINAL***** Zaboor revealed to the Prophets and
Mesengers of Allah and **not** whatever the Jews and Christians claim
is from God. This *obviously* means that according to Imam Ghazali,
what the Jews and the Christians have is **not** the original
revelation revealed by Allah Al-Mighty. Imam Ghazali believes that
the previous scriptures were tampered and altered, this is *obvious*
and *commonsense* if one cares to read the above statements ie: "In
the ***original***, ***unaltered***, Bible it was written:..."
In conclusion, Imam Ghazalli believed that all previous scriptures
have been abrogated and that they, the previous scriptures are corrupt
and tampered. This is absolutely crystal clear from the above
citations.
Now to Imam Bukhari, the missionaries use a footnote in his hadeeth in
support of their claim, this is what Dr Haddad forwarded me some time
ago:
---------------------
Ibn Hajar [Shafi`i] in Fath al-Bari said in commentary on the above:
"I did not find it authentically reported from Ibn `Abbas [from whom
al-Bukhari is citing the above], and we have a report from Ibn `Abbas
that contradicts
this in which he says: "They corrupt [yuharrifűn] means: they suppress
[yuzîlűn]."
Al-`Ayni [Hanafi] in his commentary on Sahih al-Buhkari titled `Umdat
al-Qari (11:627) says: "Abu `Ubayda sai"d: yuharrifűn... means they
shuffle
and change."
Majaz al-Qur'an by Abu `Ubayda al-Taymi (d. 210): "Yuharrifűn:
yuqallibűn wa yughayyirűn i.e. they shuffle and change." for verse
4:46.
--------------
(my words:)
The following is the saying of Ibn Abbas (RTA) recorded is Sahih
Bukhari:
Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:
"Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the
Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to
His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite
it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you
that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands
what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed
Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit
thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you
sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen
any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."
[Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850]
What about Razi? Razi leaves the door very open and does not state
that the previous scriptures scriptures were not corrupted. Rather he
is open to the idea that they were corrupted, his only statement is
that the Quran does not state exactly **WHAT** was corrupted in the
previous scriptures, but he does admit that the Quran says that the
previous scriptures have been corrupted. This is what I came accross:
"Alteration [Tahrif] must refer either to the actual words or to their
meanings ... Unbroken transmission [tawatur], however, prevents
alteration of the actual words. Thus those who altered were the
seventy men at the time of Moses, they would have altered nothing
relating to Muhammed, but only injunctions and prohibitations. If, on
the other hand, they lived at the time of Muhammed, it is more
probable that what is intended by altering are things relating to
Muhammed. The literal sense of the Quran does not indicate what they
actually altered" (Razi III pp. 134-135)"
[pg.121 "The Quran and its interpreters]
How is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan an authority on the text of the Bible? Who
gives a monkey what he has to say about the Bible when we have the
BIBLICAL SCHOLARS saying the OPPOSITE of his statement? The same goes
for Ibn Khaldun and others, they aren't any authority on this topic,
now I do not know if Ibn khaldun and others did believe that the
Jewish and Christian scriptures are fully intact, you can understand
by scepticism at the missionary claim when I know for sure they have
put lies into the mouth of others, but still, even if Ibn Khaldun and
others did believe what the missionaries say, then that makes no
difference at all. No problemo. Ibn khaldun and co. were WRONG and
we know that for sure as a result of BBLICAL STUDIES by BIBLICAL
SCHOLARS. The rest of the chaps in the list I really don't know, but
again, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, WE KNOW TODAY THEY WERE SO SO AND SO VERY
WRONG (thats just assuming they said that which is being put into
their mouths)
I am surprised why you didn't include in this small list the names of
Ibn taimiyah and al-Bedawi because missionaries asuch as shamoun claim
these 2 accepted the Jewish/Christian scriptures as authentic, yet I
know for sure this is a lie! If it is a list which the Christian
missionaries require, then I have the following to offer. These are
those who believe the previous scriptures have been corrupted [these
are only *some* of our scholars of past and contemporary times, who
have all said that the Jewish Christian scriptures are corrupted, if I
were to try and merely name *all* the *names* of our scholars, writers
and speakers, then that would fill pages! Therefore here are only
*some* of the names, infact I will name some Biblical scholars as
well!]:
Ibn Abbas (RTA), Uthman, Al-Suddi (RTA), Ubaidullah (RTA), Ibn Jarir
(RTA), Ikramah (RTA), Qatadah (RTA), Ali bin Abi Talhah, Said bin
Jubayr, Muhammad bin Kab, Atiyyah, Al-Hassan, Ata Al-Khurasani,
Mujahid, Ibn Zaid, Al-Rabi, Muhammad Ishaq, Tabari, Wahidi, Ibn Hatim,
Imam Ghazali, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, al-Bedawi, Jelalaine, Ibn Taimiyah,
Zamakhshari, Ibn Hazm, Al-Baqillani (d. 1013), Abd al-Djabbar (d.
1025), Al-Djuwayni (d. 1085), Al-Qarafi (d. 1285), Ibn Qayyim
al-Djawziyya (d. 1350), Maulana Rehmatullah of Kirana, Mawlana
Mohammed Abdul-Aleem Siddiqui, Dr. Wazir Khan, Maulana Abdul Hadi,
Maulana Ale-Hassan, Maulana Muhammad Ali Bichravi, Dr. Muhammed
Hamidullah, Adnan Oktar (pen name: Harun Yahya), Sheikh Ahmed Deedat,
Dr. Jamal Badawi, Dr. Zakir Naik, Dr. Jafar Sheik Idris, Dr Muhammad
Ali Alkhuli, Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, Dr.Nasir ibn
'Abdul-Karim al-'Aql, James Abdul Rahim Gaudet, Rabia Mills, Syed
Mumtaz Ali, Shaikh Muhammad as-Saleh Al-'Uthaimin, Shabbir Ally, Abu
Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, Mawdudi, Sheikh Abdurrahman Abdul-Khaaliq, Shaikh
M. S. Al-Munajjid, Soliman H. Al-But'he, Bruce M Metzger, Harry Y.
Gamble, G.A. Wells, D. Parker, Bart Ehram, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, James
Bentley, Kenneth W. Clark, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Sir Higgins,
Gibbon, Morton Scott Enslin, C. F. Evans, John Toland, Dr. W. Graham
Scroggie, Kenneth Cragg, J. B. Phillips, Raymond Brown, Paula
Fredriksen, Professor R.W.Rogerson, Maurice Casey, Kloppenborg, John
M. Robertson.
The above is not even the tip of the ice berg, many more hundereds of
names can be quoted, but the above will suffice for now! So if its
"names" missionaries want to mention, then surely we beat them very
very badly indeed!
Now tell me, do I believe the 7 odd guys in your list or the one in
the above list?
>
> (f) The Prophet (saw) himself accepted the bible as in the following
> Hadith:-
>
> "They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a
> woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the
> Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the
> Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him
> and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who
> revealed thee. He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a
> young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the
> tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No.
> 4431)."
Where is the Bible mentioned in the above? Please show me where it is
being endorsed? I can't see it.
The following detailed answer is by a brother (Br Kavosh Soltan) in
another newsgroup (I think I took it from a shia newsgroup a long time
ago):
------------------
I just want to point our how the unbelievers and missionaries try
to imply a different meaning for the revelation than what was
intended. We have already seen (in my other posting) that Quran
tells us prior revelations are no longer authentic. In that light,
what does this Hadith say?
Although the Jewish scholars had rejected the prophethood of hazrat
Muhammad(SAAW), they did not want to submit to the ruling of their
own book (which they believed to be authentic). So, they saught
his judgment, thinking they could free themselves from having to
stone the man who had committed adultry.
The Prophet(SAAW) certainly knew that, although unauthentic in parts,
the punishment for adultry had not been changed in the Torah. So,
what did he do? He said he accepts the judgment held in their
book (for the case at hand). This was to expose the hypocrisy of
the Jewish scholars who tried to get out of his(SAAW) judgment.
Perhaps, the remainder of story could do us some good:
==== Hadith ====
Book 38, Number 4433:
Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib:
The people passed by the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) with a
Jew who was blackened with charcoal and who was being flogged.
He called them and said: Is this the prescribed punishment for a
fornicator?
They said: Yes. He then called on a learned man among them and asked
him: I adjure you by Allah Who revealed the Torah to Moses, do you
find this prescribed punishment for a fornicator in your divine Book?
He said: By Allah, no. If you had not adjured me about this, I should
not have informed you. We find stoning to be prescribed punishment for
a fornicator in our Divine Book. But it (fornication) became frequent
in our people of rank; so when we seized a person of rank, we left him
alone, and when we seized a weak person, we inflicted the prescribed
punishment on him. So we said: Come, let us agree on something which
may be enforced equally on people of higher and lower rank. So we
agreed to blacken the face of a criminal with charcoal, and flog him,
and we abandoned stoning.
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then said: O Allah, I am the
first to give life to Thy command which they have killed. So he
commanded regarding him (the Jew) and he was stoned to death.
Allah Most High then sent down: "O Apostle, let not those who race one
another into unbelief, make thee grieve..." up to "They say: If you
are
given this, take it, but if not, beware!...." up to "And if any do
fail
to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no
better
than) unbelievers," about Jews, up to "And if any do fail to judge by
(the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than)
wrong-doers" about Jews: and revealed the verses up to "And if any
do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are
(no better than) those who rebel." About this he said: This whole
verse was revealed about the infidels.
==== Hadith ====
Incidently, we do not even know if the book today referred to as
"Torah" today is the same one that existed at the time of the holy
Prophet(SAAW).
-------------------------
>
> So, they ask, why do Muslims believe that the Bible is corrupted?
Jee, I guess because IT IS and thats what BIBLICAL scholars say. Howz
that?
>
> The above story, they say, proves that:-
>
> 1. That prophet Muhammad had an authentic copy of the Torah that was widely
> used in his times.
No, the above hadeeth does not say that the torah was totally
authentic and it does not even imply that it was widely circulated.
No such thing is mentioned in the above Hadeeth, we just have a wild
wild missionary imagination to deal with here.
>The Jews did not protest that Muhammad's copy was any
> different than their own.
Thats strange, the Jews brought forth a copy of their scripture, why
would they start saying oh its different from your copy etc? I mean
what you talking about?
> This copy was God's infallible word.
Well they can believe this. But we also know from Islamic sources
that they did not follow their own scripture when it clearly mentioned
the coming of Muhammed (PBUH), in other words these were hypocrites
who were not following that which they themselves accepted as God's
word.
>There was no
> corruption in the Scriptures, Allah's inerrant Word.
The above hadeeth has nothign to do with corruption or preservation of
the scriptures. Anyone who says otherwise is dreaming.
>
> 2. The very fact that he called the Scripture for reference should be an
> example to every Muslim today.
Nonsense. Infact let me use a Christian missionary to explain my
point. After distorting tons of Quranic verses and other sources, Sam
Shamoun tells his readers in his article:
"Note: Our usage of the Quran does not imply our belief in its
authority nor its inspiration. We quote it solely for the sake of
convincing the Muslims of the Bible's authority and authenticity as a
fact confirmed by their religious text. "
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/aboutbible.htm
Exactly, Sam is using the Quran merely as his evidence. SIMILARLY
Muhammed (PBUH) was using the Jewish scriptures as an evidence against
the Jews, not that each and every dot coma and jittle was accepted as
God's inerrant words! The stoning punishment within the Jewish
scripture was actually from God and was one of the bits that had
remained intact therein, but the Jews did not want to implement this
command of God even though they knew it was from God. So Prophet
Muhammed (PBUH) merely used their own scripture as evidence against
them! Thats all there is to it!
>
> 3. The very fact that the prophet said, "I believed in thee and in Him Who
> revealed thee" should be an exhortation to all of us to believe in all the
> Bible, following his example.
No, its not talking about the Bible, desptite the corruption of the
Jewish book, it still conained enough truth in it to lead a sincre
reader of it to Islam. The Jews admitted Muhammed (PBUH) was
mentioned in their own books in clear cut terms, so had they followed
their scripture they would have had no other choice but to accept
Islam.
>
> It is asserted by Christian missionaries that Muslims ought, therefore, to
> accept the Christian scriptures and become Christians.
Christians ought first convince their own scholars and population
about the inerrancy of their scriptures and then worry about the
Muslims.
>
> They also tell us that there are contradictions between the teachings of the
> Quran and the Bible.
Which to a Muslim clearly means corruption of these scriptures.
>
> "And unto thee (Muhammad) have We revealed the Book in truth, verifying what
> was before it, and preserving it. Judge then between them by what Allah has
> revealed, and follow not their lusts (prejudices, fantasies), turning away
> >from what is given to thee of the truth. For each of you have We appointed a
> Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one
> nation, but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore,
> vie with one another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will
> then inform you concerning that wherein ye dispute." 5:48
>
> It is this, which creates the disagreement between Islam and Christianity.
> The Quran and Bible appear to disagree in the minds of those who
> misinterpret both.
Let me quote some material I have pertaining to this verse, its
interpretation:-
Allah commands the Muslims to rule by the Quran and says that the
Quran is MUHAYMIN over the previous scriptures, which means whatever
agrees with the Quran is accepted and whatever disagrees with the
Quran is rejected. This LOGICALLY means that not everything in the
scriptures are of the Jews and Christians is accurate and prestine
according to the Quran.
"And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân)
in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan
(trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures)[]. So
judge between them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their
vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To
each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allâh
willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you
in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The
return of you (all) is to Allâh; then He will inform you about that in
which you used to differ." 5:48
"Unto you, O Prophet, We have vouchsafed this divine writ, setting
forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains
of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge,
then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with
what Allah has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant
views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee." [Al-Ma'idah 5:48,
tr. Asad]
MUHAYMIN: Arabic Lexicon: root verb "Haymana" saying Ameen/ control
/watch,/ preserve.
Hans-Wehr Arabic dictionary informs us that Muhaymin means protector,
watcher etc.
The phrase used in the verse 5:48 is 'muhaymin alayhi' which means
watcher/protecter over it, i.e., the previous Scripture.
Muhaymin: Guardian/ watcher/ protector/ dominant/ quality control/
rectifying/ wittness/ judge/ trustworthy/ entrusted etc.
The word muhaymin (as used in the above verse) in Arabic means
"Guardian/watcher/protector." In other words, it is the job of the
Quran to separate the wheat from the chaff in the earlier revelations.
The Quran confirms the earlier revelations in their original form. If
the earlier
revelations were not corrupted then why is the Quran a watcher over
it?
So that which agrees with the Quran, Muslims accept. And that which
contradicts the Quran we likewise reject. So even though the
scriptures of the Jews and Christians may contain truth in them, much
truth, the are nevertheless not devoid of errors and misinformation,
hence Allah has made the Quran MUHAYMIN over them, as a quality
controll, a wather over them.
Ibn Kathir explains the word "Muhaymin" in detail in his Tafsir [I
have just broken up the explanation into paragraphs]:
Ibn Kathir explains the meaning of this word in detail [commenting
upon the Quranic verse: "and Muhayminan over it." 5:48]:
---------------
"means entrusted over it, according to Sufyan Ath-Thawei who narrated
it from Abu Ishaq from At-Tamimi from Ibn Abbas. [1]
Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn Abbas said, "Muhaymin is, 'the
Trustworthy. Allah says that the Quran is trustworthy OVER EVERY
Divine Book that preceded it." [1] This was reported from Ikramah,
Said bin Jubayr, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Kab, Atiyyah, Al-Hassan,
Qatadah, Ata Al-Khurasani, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. [2]
Ibn Jarir said, "The Quran is trustworthy over the Books that preceded
it. Therefore, whatever in these previous Books CONFORMS TO THE QURAN
IS TRUE, and WHATEVER DISAGREES with the Quran IS FALSE."
Al-Walibi said that Ibn Abbas said that Muhayminan means, 'Witness.'
[3] Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi said the same.
Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas said that Muhayminan means, 'dominant
over the previous Scriptures.' [4]
These meanings are SIMILAR, as the word Muhaymin INCLUDES THEM ALL.
Consequently, the Quran is trustworthy, a witness and dominant over
every scripture that preceded it. This Glorious Book, which Allah
revealed as the Last and Final Book, is the most encompassing,
glorious and perfect Book of all times. The Quran includes all the
good aspects of precious Scriptures and even more, which no previous
Scripture ever contained. This is why Allah made it trustworthy, a
witness and dominant over ALL Scriptures." -- all emphasis added
[1] At-Tabari 10:378
[1] At-Tabari 10:379
[2] At-Tabari 10:377-380
[3] At-Tabari 10:377
[4] At-Tabari 10:379
------------
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Abridged. Vol. 3. pg. 196-197. Darussalam
Publishers and Distributors. 2000]
------------
-------------
Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi explains:
">>And we have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the book in truth,
confirming the scripture that came before it, and a muhaymin over it>>
[5:48]
The word 'muhaymin' means that the Qur'aan is a wittness over the
previous scriptures, SO THAT ALL THAT CONFORMS WITH IT FROM THE
PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES IS ACCEPTED, AND ALL THAT CONTRADICTS IT IS
REJECTED. The Qur'aan, therefore, acts as a naasikh agent OVER THE
PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES, wich are MANSOOKH WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH THE
QUR'AAN. 529
This is one of the greatest blessings of the Qur'aan, for it shows
that it is the most complete Book (since nothing can abrogate the
Qur'aan after it), and that IT IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER SCRIPTURES
(since it abrogates all previous Books). It also demonstrates the
superiority of the ummah of the Prophet (SAW) over all other nations,
since the set of laws that have been revealed to it are perfect for
all and suitable for all nations, AT ALL TIMES. This is in CONTRAST TO
ALL OTHER LAWS, WHICH WERE MEANT FOR A SPECIFIC NATION, AT A SPECIFIC
TIME." ----emphsis added
529: cf. Tafseer Ibn Kathir on this verse.
[Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi. 1999. "An Introduction To The Sciences Of The
Qur'aan" Chapter 13 "Abrogation in the Qur'aan - an-Naasikh wa
al-Mansookh" pg. 246. Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution. ISBN 1
898649 32 4]
-------------
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak states:
"The Qur’aan is Muhaymin (i.e., it testifies to the truth that
is in the previous scriptures and exposes the falsehood that has been
added to them), and it abrogates the previous Books. The Tawraat
(Torah) and Injeel (Gospel) have been abrogated and have been changed
and altered. And Allaah knows best."
"...it [Quran] is a Muhaymin [Muhaymin: that which testifies the truth
that is therein and falsifies the falsehood that is added therein]
over them. So there is no longer any revealed Book according to which
Allaah may be worshipped apart from the Qur’aan." [Sheikh
Muhammed S al-Munajjid of http://www.islam-qa.com]
Dr Jamal Badawi sums it all up nicely:
"What is the Muslim basis or criterion for accepting or not accepting
portions or passages from the Bible? The Qur’an itself provides
such criterion:
“And unto you have We revealed the Scripture with the truth,
confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watch over it ....
“ (the Qur’an 5:48)
This emphasizes two main aspects of the Qur’an:
a) The Qur’an confirms those teachings or passages of previous
scriptures which remained intact.
b) The Qur’an is the last, complete, authoritative and authentic
revelation. It is the final arbiter and the only criterion to correct
any inaccuracy or misinterpretation which might have occurred in the
transmission of scriptures. It helps in discovering human additions to
or interpolations of previous revelations, even as it reveals possible
deletions which might have taken place through the centuries prior to
its revelation (the Qur’an). Indeed one of the names of the
Qur’an is al-Furqan (the criterion which distinguishes between
right and wrong, truth and falsehood).
It follows therefore that a Muslim has no reason to reject the essence
of any passage in the Bible if such a passage is confirmed by the
Qur’an. For example, we read in the New Testament a reiteration
of one of the Ten Commandments:
“And Jesus answered him. The first of all commandments is hear,
0 Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29)
A Muslim who reads this passage in the Qur’an can find no
objection to its essence. After all the Qur’an confirms:
“Say He is Allaah, the One and Only (God)” (The
Qur’an 112:1)
If, however, a Muslim reads in the Bible (or other previous scriptures
for that matter) accusations of major moral sins levied against great
prophets or doctrines which are totally negated in the Qur’an,
the Muslim accepts only the Qur’anic version as the original
unadulterated truth, revealed by Allah (God)."
[Dr. Jamal Badawi "Muhammad in the Bible"
http://www.analyzeislam.com/comparativereligion/muhammadinthebible.html]
---------------------
Lastly, one only needs to see what Biblical scholars have to say about
the Jewish/Christian scriptures. No Bible scholar would say that the
Bible is authentic and prestine because the Quran does not say it is
corrupted! A Muslim knows the previous scriptures are corrupted
because of the mamoth of evidence he/she has at hand to study, all
produced by top notch Biblical scholars and not some "mad" Muslim
mullahs. In short, one only needs to see what Biblical scholars have
to say in order to know how acurate and authentic Jewish/Christian
scriptures are. If the Quran dosen't say that the Jewish/Christian
scriptures are corrupted, then that dosen't mean either that they are
authentic. Note, the Quran also does not deny the corruption of the
previous scriptures, the Quran does not say that whatever the Jews and
the Christians have is totally accurate and authentic, and we today
know as a fact that the Jewish/Christian scriptures are not accurate
and not authentic based on the work, study and research carried out by
Biblical scholars themselves.
Assuming if the Quran does not say that the scriptures of the Jews and
Christians is corrupted, does that logically follow that the Jewish
and Christian writings are totally accurate and authentic, prestine,
because the Quran dosen't say they are tampered and corrupted? This
is a silly reasoning used by the missionaries. The Quran also does
not say that the Hindu scriptures are prestine revelation from Allah,
does that "logically" follow that THEY ARE authentic prestine
revelation from Allah? The Quran does not deny that the HIndu
scriptures are true and accurate and revealed by the Hindu gods, does
that mean Muslims should start following the Hindu scriptures? The
Quran does not mention that the Hindu godess Kali and the Hindu gods
Rama etc., are all false gods, does it then "logically" follow that
these are indeed true gods and Muslims should start worshipping them
because the Quran does not state that these are false gods?? The
Quran also does not say that the Book of Mormon is from Allah. Does
that "logically" follow that the Book of Mormon is indeed from Allah
because the Quran does not deny it is from Allah? The Quran does not
mention and talk about any Budhist scriptures. Does that "logically"
follow that the Budhist scriptures are indeed from Allah and are
authentic because the Quran does not deny they are from Allah and does
not deny their authenticity?? Anyone will see that this is simply a
ridiculous and silly reasoning and no sane indivisual would ever
accept this flawed reasoning. The missionaries are precisely using
this same flawed reasoning, they say the Quran does not say that the
previous scriptures are corrupted, so it follows that they must not be
corrupted. But then what about the scholarship at hand, Biblical
scholarship which states that the Christian Bible suffers massively
>from textual corruption and that verses were added and deleted from
the text by Christians in all the ages for various reasons, both
intentional and unintentional corruption? These are all simply well
known facts today which are not in dispute, and so a Muslim is looking
at BIBLICAL scholarship and hence knows that these scriptures of the
Christians are most certainly not prestine and authentic. And using
the missionary logic, since the Quran DOES NOT DENY that the previous
scriptures are corrupted, well then that *must* follow that they are
indeed corrupted and we can be sure they are corrupted because the
BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP itself says so. So: Quran does not deny that the
previous scriptures are corrupted, Biblical scholarship today says
that the Bible is corrupted, and so we LOGICALLY conclude that the
Jewish/Christian scriptures are corrupted.
Johnny.
Johnny
at-Tabari. al-Tabari didn't accept the previous scriptures as
authentic and the missionaries quote nothing from him but just
polemics from their Christian missionary sources which contain their
theories. Dr GF Haddad a long time ago gave me a detailed answer
regarding al-Tabari and the missionary argument, unfortunately I lost
all the stuff when my previous PC was hit by a virus!
Johnny
Altway
news:a0h942$rfe$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > Views of Islam - 17. The Bible in the Quran
> > The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands
faith in it. The following verses are quoted to prove this:-
2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91;
10:37,94;
21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11
(a) These texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God
to
the people of Muhammad's day. 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
> None of these verses talk about the Bible, they don't even mention the
Bible.
> None of these verses presuppose any such thing.
Comment:-
If it is a criticism, then you seem to have misunderstood my article.
Or are you just adding to it?
I was telling you what some Christian Missionaries were saying, and
as the title of the article shows, I was concerned only with what the Quran
has to say and not the opinions of others.
But thanks for the additional information.
Eric
I think what has to be questioned is the mind of Muhammad. For some reason
he believed God was telling him that he was himself the Seal of the
Prophets, the culmination of all prophethood. Yet Muhammad acknowledged in
the pages of the Quran that God did not confirm his prophethood with any
miracles, as He had confirmed Moses and Jesus. The question is why did this
not cause Muhammad more consternation and pause. Why did Muhammad not give
Moses and Jesus more honor than he claimed for himself?
Incidently, I have been raised as a Christian and I have never seen or heard
of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, and David, among others being
venerated by Christians (or Jews for that matter) as prophets. They had a
unique relationship with God, but they were not called by God to be
prophets. Why does Islam posthumously promote them to that office?
Eric
Can I get a little more clarification? You have used the word "revoke."
That word carries a lot of weight. In the history of American law, at one
point we decided that liquor was so bad its manufacture, transportation and
sale had to be prohibited by the Federal government. Later we *revoked*
that prohibition. When something is revoked it is not restated and
clarified, it is not modified or amended, it is thrown in the garbage. Just
to be perfectly clear here. When you say God revoked some of the older
verses of the Quran are you not admitting that God made a mistake? Even if
you cover that mistake by saying Arab circumstances changed and
modifications were necessary, are you not then admitting that God was unable
to see those future circumstances and craft a divine revelation capable of
fitting it?
If Islam has anything like Catholic confession, I think you're overdue for
an appointment. I mean, look out! Your all merciful, gracious Allah may be
upset that you have pointed out His inadequacies in this manner.
Moataz Emam
> I think what has to be questioned is the mind of Muhammad. For some reason
Only if you believe Mohammed wrote the Quran, which, obviously, Muslims
do not.
> the pages of the Quran that God did not confirm his prophethood with any
> miracles, as He had confirmed Moses and Jesus. The question is why did this
Mohammed had some miracles. His night trip to Jerusalem, which was
confirmed by people he saw there, arriving months after him. The
miraculous escape from Mecca, chased by his enemies with the intent of
killing him (look up the story). Anyway, Mohammed's greatest miracle is
the Quran. Its rich structure is incomparable. No one, and many tried,
has been able to write anything close to that. And the Arabs excelled at
poetry and literature. The point is Mohammed's miracle is an
intellectual miracle, a book!
> not cause Muhammad more consternation and pause. Why did Muhammad not give
> Moses and Jesus more honor than he claimed for himself?
The Quran is explicit in venerating all prophets at the same footing. In
fact, Mohammed himself is not mentioned in the Quran as often as Moses
and Jesus.
> venerated by Christians (or Jews for that matter) as prophets. They had a
> unique relationship with God, but they were not called by God to be
> prophets. Why does Islam posthumously promote them to that office?
Because God in the Quran says so ;)
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> Can I get a little more clarification? You have used the word "revoke."
Sure. All the issues that had been adjusted in the Quran by revoking
earlier verses had to do with things that was so inherent in Arab
culture and society that it would have been disastrous and repelling to
people to suddenly prohibit them. God does not make mistakes. He
gradually changed the rules intentionally. Your example of the
prohibition is a good one. Liquor drinking was not prohibited all of a
sudden. It was never explicitly allowed either. What happened was, a
verse of the Quran commanded the faithful not to pray while drunk. That
implies an OK to drinking in general. Then Mohammed spoke of the evils
of drinking over a period of many years. People became more and more
convinced and began to drift away from drinking. Muslim liquor merchants
started gradually changing their businesses. ONLY then did a verse
completely prohibiting drinking was revealed, hence revoking the earlier
OK.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Mira
An answer to your question, from the Qur'an: "And We preferred some of
the Prophets above others." (17:55)
Each one of the Prophets had a miracle. Moses spoke to God, but
Allah's revelation was conveyed to all the other Prophets through
Gabriel.
Salaam,
Mira
Gilberto Simpson
Hello Eric...
> I think what has to be questioned is the mind of Muhammad.
Sure. That is a product of the assumptions you are bringing into this
particular discussion. There is nothing wrong with that but someone
else might start from a different place.
> For some reason
> he believed God was telling him that he was himself the Seal of the
> Prophets, the culmination of all prophethood. Yet Muhammad acknowledged in
> the pages of the Quran that God did not confirm his prophethood with any
> miracles,
Where is that said? Muslims might say that the Quran itself was a
miracle given to Muhammad. And the Quran and especially Hadith mention
a number of miraculous events (if that's important to you and that's
what you are looking for). So the assumption that there were no
miracles isn't necessarily a valid one.
> as He had confirmed Moses and Jesus. The question is why did this
> not cause Muhammad more consternation and pause. Why did Muhammad not give
> Moses and Jesus more honor than he claimed for himself?
Why should honor be a function of miracles? From a certain point of
view, miracles of the sort you are looking for are just "special
effects" and aren't really central. A weighter aspect of any religion
is going to be its capacity to transform human lives.
> Incidently, I have been raised as a Christian and I have never seen or heard
> of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, and David, among others being
> venerated by Christians (or Jews for that matter) as prophets. They had a
> unique relationship with God, but they were not called by God to be
> prophets. Why does Islam posthumously promote them to that office?
I've noticed that a couple of "difficulties" are caused by looking at
Islamic teachings with Christian expectations. I mean, if the Bible is
your ultimate measuring rod and guide for religious truth then there
is no contest and some form of Christianity is the
Truth-with-a-capital-T and Islam is false. It shouldn't take any deep
thought to see that. But if you don't approach this question with
those particular biases then the"problems" disappear.
To address your specific point, I don't see where the difficulty is?
Islam has a concept of a "prophet".(In Arabic the term is "nabi") A
certain kind of person who has received revelation from God. According
to both the Quran and the Bible, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and David received some sort of communication from God. In the Bible,
you can even read texts which allege to be the inspired words given to
David in the Psalms. (Although there is some contraversy about this
point, some Muslims would even say that Mary and Moses' mother were
both prophets because they both received messages from God regarding
their children).
In the Bible/Judaism/Christianity, the concept of "prophet" and the
question of who is or isn't a prophet is less important than it is in
Christianity. So the Bible simply doesn't go through much effort to
identify someone like Mary or Ishmael or even David as prophets, even
though they may have received revelation.
Peace
Gilberto
Gilberto Simpson
> Greetings to all,
>
> iqr...@yahoo.com (Iqra) in her/his message of 10 Dec 2001 07:17:19 GMT
> contradicted my view that the Koran does not know the later theory of
> taHriyf, i.e. the tempering by the Jews and Christians with their Holy
> Scriptures. He quoted:
> > "Therefore, woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands,
> > then say, "This is from God," seeking a cheap price. Woe to them for
> > what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they gain. "
> > 2:79
> I can't see that here Jews or Christians or Jewish or Christian Holy
> Scriptures are mentioned.
Christoph, if you look a couple of ayats in either direction you would
see that the children of Israel. But even if they weren't, I'm
wondering who ELSE would it refer to if not the people of the book?
How many other people were claiming to have written books from God?
> On the other side, there are verses in the Koran which definitely
> mention these Holy Scriptures and advice people to look into them.
That is not necessarily inconsistent with a belief that the Bible has
changed over time. And there are a couple of ways to see that.
For example, the Quran refers to the Torah given to Moses. But at the
same time, many Christians believe in the documentary hypothesis
(which says, among other things that the Torah was composes of
materials from multiple authors several centuries after the time of
Moses.) If you think about what that means, one can certainly affirm
that Jews and Christians have the "Torah given to Moses" with them and
encourage them to believe in it and follow it, while at the same time
saying that the first five books of the Bible have been corrupted. One
could say that the Torah (the revealed scripture refered to by the
Quran) is not coterminous with the Penteteuch.
The argument is even easier to make with the Gospels. Yes, Jesus
brough revelation, and yes, the injeel is contained (either in its
entirety, or in part) somewhere in the Bible but that doesn't mean
that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are it. The gospels don't even claim
to be purely a revelation given to Jesus.
Even in the book of Psalms (At least in the Bible I tend to look at)
not all of the Psalms are attributed to David. So if the Zabur
mentioned by the Quran are a revelation given to David, then many
Christians would admit that a later editor took soom non-Davidic
materials and included them in that particular book.
Even Christians implicitly make claims about one another that are
similar to the accusation of corruption which many Muslims would make
against "the" Bible except they tend to softpedal the issue and be
diplomatic (which is understandable). Catholics and Protestants have
different Bibles. They disagree about the canon. And so implicitly,
Protestants accuse Catholics of having a "corrupted" Bible (and
similarly Catholics implicitly accuse Protestants of having an
incomplete one). And furthermore, it is not just a matter of which
discrete set of books each group has decided to canonize. The Catholic
versions of Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah actually contain more material
than their PRotestant counterparts. And the changes are not just
appended to the end of the texts (except for maybe Daniel) sentences
and passages are changed throughout the book.
So whatever else you may say, it IS a fact that at some point, editors
HAVE changed the texts in non-trivial ways for some reason. There is
no question that the text has been "corrupted". The question is now
just a matter of degree and intention.
-Gilberto
GF Haddad
news:9u8arn$4rl$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I noticed in the Q'uran that the infancy naratives for Jesus are at odds
> with Christian scripture.
Not with the so-called Apocrypha such as the Protevangelium of James.
Hajj Gibril
Qas...@ziplip.com