On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:40:03 PM UTC+2, Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 2:50 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > Muslims believe, as stated explicitly in the Qur'an that
> > God sent each nation a Messenger delivering the same
> > revelation (except for some specific differences in
> > some details of some commandments that he deemed apporpriate
> > for only a particular time and place)in the language of that
> > nation. For Moses and the Israelites it was in Hebrew, for
> > Jesus in Aramaic and so on. The Qur'an says it does not mention
> > all of them (Muslims give the generous figure of 124 000). The
> > Arabs recieved it last in Arabic and this was meant
> > as the final revelation for all mankind as well, one that will
> > not be corrupted over time.
> >
> > As I said this is what Muslims happen to believe, I'm not forcing it
> > or advocating it.
>
> I know that a certain amount of what you say above is based on specific
> Hadith (not the Qur'an itself). Could you specify the important Hadith,
> and perhaps tell people where those Hadith can be found? There's quite
> a bit of misunderstanding of how Islamic theology is formed among
> non-Muslims, so some background is helpful.
I don't know the specific source of the figure 124 000,
which is not in the Qur'an, but that each nation was
given a Messenger (rasu:l) to give the revelation
in their own language and the continuity of revelation is very
explicitly stated in the Qur'an a number of times. The Qur'an also
states that Muhammad is the "Seal of the Prophets".
The Qur'an also states that Qur'an is in Arabic so that it will
be understood and that Muhammad is an Arab Prophet (he spoke
Arabic), that other sources used a foreign tongue. It also
states that not all of the Messengers / prophets are mentioned,
adding that some nations have been given more than one.
So what happened is that later writers went into the histories
and legends of various peoples and tried to discover who these
messengers were. See for example Rashiduddin's "Compedium of
Histories", a first attempt at World History in the 14th cent.,
which contains introductory chapters for each nation on this
subject.
The other minor points are from exegetical writings mostly
based on Qur'anic passages.
>
> > Christianity is rather exceptional in that it does not make
> > recourse to a sacred text in a particular language. Rather
> > various sects have their own standards from various translations.
> > In fact, most denominations rely on the Greek LXX rather than the
> > Hebrew Tanakh.
>
> Not quite right. Christians recognize the Hebrew and Aramaic original
> texts of the books of the Jewish Bible (what we call the Old Testament)
> as the source documents, and the Koine Greek text of the New Testament
> as the source documents. English speakers customarily refer to
I don't want to go off topic but for example the Churches teach that
the mother of the Messiah "3alma" is to be read as parthenos as in
the LXX and hence "virgin". There is dispute about the status of
the portions found in the LXX and not in the Tanakh and the Book
of Jubilees is in the Ethiopic Canon and not in any other canon.
In the NT you have the long and short versions of certain gospels.
I also understand that Catholics reject the version of the Armenian
Orthodox Church.
> different translations of the original texts as "versions", a bad habit
Nevrtheless many churches have "Authorized Versions". There are no
"Authorized" Qur'an translations of particular sects or nationalities.
> which has led some non-Christians (and probably a few uneducated
> Christians) to think that these translations are considered the
> equivalents of the original texts. They are not. :)
I believe there was at the least former teaching that certain translations,
at least the LXX were divinely inspired. In Islam you can't claim
this after Muhammad.