Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Muslim-Christian Debate, Here

Recommended Posts

Again, this is according to teachings of Paul.  I am not sure if it is in this thread or another but technically speaking the Old Testament was already being corrupted before the time of Jesus.  With only a small group of people able to read or write this was very easy as it was the scribes who controlled the Torah.  It was part of a culling process, this was done time and again to edit. Many even today will admit to this as much of the Torah as we now know it was originally oral . 

 

The only verse I can think of where there is any indication of what you are speaking is 1 John 1:1  .... outside of that there is verse after verse about Jesus saying to worship the father. 

 

Perhaps these sites might help to clarify some things:

 

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible.asp

 

http://www.islamreligion.com/category/70/

 

On the second link you can also check out some of the other areas just by typing in the base website: www.islamreligion.com 

 

there is a plethora of information on both sites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

You said, "Hell is not eternal. Hell is eternal for the elite in evil. Those who associate partners unto Allah; those who have created graven images and have not sough forgiveness before their death, and those with pride in their hearts and whom so ever Allah wills will be in hellfire forever. As long as you have an atoms weight of faith hell is not permanent thanks to the grace and mercy of Allah."

 

I cannot tell you how good that makes me feel, because even though I have grave trouble seeing Islam as my religion, I know I have more than an ounce of faith; therefore, it is good to know hell is not forever, but I now have trouble with this statement of yours even though I like the sound of it. This is not an attack. I am critical of myself and my beliefs as well. I always ask myself why do I believe this or that. For instance, I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and they teach the same that hell is not eternal for those who believe in God and have venial sins. Mortal sins would be those of missing mass and of course atheism or becoming a Muslim and denying Jesus is the son of God.  

 

I left the Catholic church upsetting my staunch Catholic family to where they disowned me. Now, about what you said "hell is not eternal," Again, I like it; in fact, I really, really want to believe it but I cannot, because I cannot keep from thinking that Islam borrowed this concept from Catholic Christianity or Christianity in general among other things. Take the virgin birth for instance, the only place that is found is in the injeel (NT). Read Matthew 7. The Jews didn't believe in the virgin birth and nothing in the Torah led them to believe it was for Jesus whom they don't even believe is a prophet.

 

There is no evidence in Scripture that Jesus received a gospel from Allah except in Islamic teaching. I believe what was intended by the injeel was and is the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John only Paul  wasn't mentioned by Allah or Muhammad. Paul tightened up Christianity; otherwise, it would be a ship out at sea without a rudder. There was never any other gospel that Jesus wrote. If there were, God would have surely preserved it, and it would have added credence to Islam in my eyes and many others.

 

As far as trinity is concerned, that word is not mentioned in our Holy Book only in yours. Moreover, the trinity implied by Allah is never what Christians believed in not even the Catholic Christians who adhere to paganism and idolatry. I have already explained my rationale for believing that the Quran shows misconceptions of Christianity and appears to have imperfectly borrowed Christian concepts regarding the virgin birth, heaven and hell and from the Jews and Christians monotheism.

 

These are the things that keep me from Islam and keep me ever close to believing that God is one with no partners period. The Bible alludes that hell is non negotiable and forever, but there are levels in hell as there are in heaven.

 

According to the Bible, hell is for those who have rejected Jesus as their Savior when prompted by God to do so.

 

Islam and Christianity are in direct contradiction pertaining to the core belief system: for Muslims saying Jesus (as) is the son of god is the greatest sin and is unforgivable; for Christians you cannot be saved unless you say Jesus (as) is the son of god. It's hard for converts because it asks you to sever the core of your belief system; it's difficult understandably.

 

 

As far as trinity is concerned, that word is not mentioned in our Holy Book only in yours. Moreover, the trinity implied by Allah is never what Christians believed in not even the Catholic Christians who adhere to paganism and idolatry.

 

That was from a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. In another translation by Muhammad Marmude Picktall:

 

 

171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The

Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit

from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One

God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all

that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

 

 

 

These are the things that keep me from Islam and keep me ever close to believing that God is one with no partners period.

 

You've already come so far and you can never be wrong in saying "god is one with no partners". You ask a lot of questions and in doing so you're building a bridge but no matter how long you build that bridge there will always be a gap that you can't jump. Religion is about faith and that jump requires faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the video and the narrator is not understanding Paul's message. Paul never said you are saved by faith without works and James wasn't saying you are saved by works. Paul didn't say the law was done away with, but that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and that God's laws are written on our hearts. Paul was saying works cannot save you.

 

Paul was saying we cannot keep the Mosaic law, and therefore to break one thing in the law is to be guilty of all, and if we live by the law, we will be judged by the law.

 

Paul's message matches when Jesus said, Those who love God with all their being and there neighbor as themselves have fulfilled all the law and the prophets; for instance, if you  love you neighbor as yourself, you will not commit adultery on him or steal or kill or covet his goods; you will honor your parents and not have any gods before the Lord and so on.

 

What Paul was saying in my words is that it is possible to have good works and not have faith, but what James was saying and Paul doesn't disagree that it is not possible to have faith without good works. IOW, where there is fire (faith) there is smoke (works)

 

Circumcision was a covenant God made with the Jews not the gentiles. There is nothing wrong with being circumcised, but if you mandate it as God's law for all men then those who follow it, need to keep all the law perfectly or they will be judged for breaking all the law.  Paul was saying that keeping the law perfectly isn't possible, (except for Jesus who did it).

 

His message is quite simple. He was stating we can only be saved by God's Grace through our faith and that without faith it is impossible to please God. Show me a man that has great faith, and I'll show you a man with great works. Show me a man who has done great works, and I'll show you someone who may or may not be a believer or have faith!

 

Faith without works is dead; IOW, there is no such thing as faith without works. How can one love and believe God without works that reflect that faith?

 

have you reviewed the links yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly with all due respect it seems like we both are wasting time in the conversation because it sounds like you have already made your decision and are not willing to look past that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmed Deedat discussed the following: 

 

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.(John 16: 12,13,14)

 

Deedat asks the following question: 'I am asking my Christian brother for the past 14 years, I don't want many solutions, give me one that the Holy Ghost gave you in 2000 years, one. something that Jesus Christ had not already told you, in so many different words, one, any church, any denomination, any cult. Bring me one new thing that the Holy Ghost gave you'. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnRPI2wHS4

 

Saying something like: 

 

"He brings understanding of Scripture to us and teaches us and is with us and glorifies Jesus in our lives"

- What is new in this?? Where is the new thing that was presented to the Christians which Jesus could not tell you? As Ahmed Deedat knew like we know today, Christians cannot even point out one new thing, never mind many things.

 

The Christians claim they love Jesus but they reject his brother in faith Muhammad who came to complete the message of the same God they believe in. Prophet Muhammad was the one who taught us new things, who guided us to the truth and who taught us what is yet to come. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is evidence that Jesus is the son of God or the word of God incarnate but not God (the father). I believe that Jesus as the word of God incarnate is all that God is but not all there is to God!

 

if Adam, Jacob, David are sons of God, what is so special with jesus??? biblically son of God means righteous person not physically sons of God.

 

and yes jesus is Word of God, how?

 

God said "Be" and jesus was created in the Mary's womb. that is why he is called Word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redeemed I wonder if you have an answer to my above post or are you going to ignore it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not ignoring you. I just haven't gotten around to post yet. Jesus is showing things to me in my life and about my life that I couldn't bear had he told me all at once. He is showing me things that will happen that I ponder in my heart. He has shown me things that glorify Him in my life. He has shown me how God answered His prayer to be one with the father has He is one with Him. These are things I don't share with everyone but since you asked, I have told you.

 

I notice your signature says Allah found Muhammad wondering. Wondering implies being lost and in sin to me. Is that what it means and then Allah set him on the straight path because he wasn't at first? Jesus was never wondering or lost in sin but He came to seek out that which was lost. He was always on the straight path.

 

You ask why wouldn't I want to accept Muhammad a brother of Jesus? Why would I want Muhammad over Jesus as to the one to seek final guidance from? I believe God is one with no partners and Jesus is His Word' I have faith in God as being one therefore even Islam offers me hope. Christianity offers no hope to those who reject Him as the son of the living God who died and rose to save us with His shed blood for our sin. It sounds like I am in a good place and have the best of both spiritual worlds.

 

I have no reason to lie by saying I don't worship Mary. I do believe she was blessed among woman, and I believe Muhammad was blessed among men, but just as I don't follow Mary for being blessed; I don't follow Muhammad for being blessed. 

 

 

Paradise Lost are you going to ignore my post on the other thread?

 

 

PBUY from me!

Well I hadn't been online to get to your other post but I will look at it. 

 

But you still haven't said what the Holy Spirit has taught that is new. You are just talking about personal experiences that you feel you are being guided but that doesn't answer the question. What has the Holy Spirit taught Christians of what is to come rather than you yourself? See I find it strange that the masculinity of that verse is ignored so many times the word he is mentioned and it talks about speaking.

 

Well my signature says wandering not wondering but anyhow, that word in arabic has many meanings. It can have the meaning of being lost, being unaware of the way or like to be at a crossroads. Muhammad was certainly a believer in Allah however but Allah chose Him to show the principles of faith. For example I myself chose to come to Islam because of this feeling. I always believed that there was one Higher Being but I was unsure for a long time as to how to understand that Higher Being and what purpose out lives have. So for a few years these were things I had been thinking about as I went through stages of researching different religions and eventually I felt I had been guided by Allah to Islam. The verse can also have a deeper meaning as the prophet who believed in Allah often took time out to think about Allah and one day when he was alone it was when the quran was first recited to him. Can you imagine the feeling of belief in Allah while you are surrounded by pagans who worship idols and then one day Allah chooses you to be his prophet. 

 

See this is where Christianity and Islam differ because of our understanding of Jesus pbuh. Islam recognises that from very early on Jesus had a special purpose because it says in the quran he spoke in the cradle. It suggests that from a very young age that Jesus was different. Muhammad on the other hand had been chosen by Allah to be a prophet later on in his life.This does not make him any less of a prophet because in Islam we respect all the prophets since they all had a special message from Allah.

 

And well that is your choice about what you believe in Muhammad but I have come across enough evidence that made me choose to believe he was a prophet and to reject that idea that Jesus was God. I am just more interested in what you think about that verse I posted earlier on what Ahmad Deedat says about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so special about Jesus? I can't believe you are asking such a question. Was Adam, Jacob and David virgin born? God used Adam to start the human race. Adam failed, but Jesus the last Adam was victorious and lived a sinless life that through Him we might be victorious as well. The Quran says He is a word from Allah and the Bible states He is the word of God. The Bible and the Quran agree here, but the Quran doesn't give the explanation you give that Jesus is called the word of God because Allah said Be and He was. However even if you are right, all of God's word is His creation. Moreover, God cannot be greater than His word. When God said Be, and Jesus was created in the womb that was God making His word flesh and not making Jesus a word from him because the word of God always existed as long as God was God. What is special about Jesus? What is not special about Him is a better question? I believe Jesus is the word Be that God used to created all things seen and unseen. John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

 

 

What is so special about Jesus? I can't believe you are asking such a question. Was Adam, Jacob and David virgin born?

 

so your logic says Jesus is more special beacuse his mother gave birth to him without male intervention

 

while ADAM WHO HAD NO MOTHER NOR FATHHER IS NOT MORE SPECIAL WHEN IT COMES TO CREATION OF THESE TWO GREAT PROPHETS.

 

what kind of logic is that??? when it comes to creation, how can jesus be more special or even be equal to adam who had no mother nor father while jesus had mother at least.

 

 

 

However even if you are right, all of God's word is His creation. 

 

yes, but the title "Word of God" is only on jesus.

 

 

 

 I believe Jesus is the word Be that God used to created all things seen and unseen.

 

yes, that is true, we muslims believe that also.

 

 

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

 

that is not correct translation of the original text of the bible, it should be and the Word was divine (not God)

 

evidence:

 

 

1) Mistranslation of the text:

 

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

 

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

 

And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

In yet another Bible we read:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

 

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt

Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.

If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok everyone. I'm back. :) I was gone longer than expected and when I got home I had no Internet connection. By the time my Internet was up again I had to leave again for another 2 weeks. I will be leaving again in a few days and over the course of these days I will try to reply to most of the arguements here. I will be flying in a couple of minutes and then will have to sort through the 60+ posts made in my absence. Expect me to start replying sometime tomorrow.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how Deedat died may Allah reward him a good place in the next life. See in Islam the pain of this world is worth it if we will make it to paradise. And do you think there are no Christians out there who suffered from a stroke?

 

Blasphemous to call the Holy spirit the ghost very funny. Christians themselves are the ones in the past who referred to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost. 

 

So you didn't refer to what it says in the bible about a false spirit being a false prophet (epistle of john chp5:4) or the verse with 7 spirits (book of revelations). So the spirit obviously doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit everytime in the bible. 

 

And still no answer on the main question: 'Bring me one new thing that the Holy Ghost gave you'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I look at how Deedat died; that threw the fear of the Lord into me. You can Goggle it.

 

 

the funny thing is when christians bring this stuff in the forum, like "look how deedat died , from stroke in a bed".

 

 

but they forget how jesus died according to their belief

 

Why-Passion_of_The_Christ-Jesus_on_Cross

so according to that logic, deedat's death is nothing compared to jesus, how painfull death he went trough.

 

christians please come to common sense and logic, and leave this hypocritical thinking behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremiah 8 is not referring to the Bible being corrupt. That is ridiculous to say the least. It is talking about documenting in written form wicked interpretations of Scripture all ready in existence preserved by God and established forever in heaven as stated in the Scriptures for the purpose of leading people astray. Common sense tells you that if they were corrupting the Bible, they wouldn't tell you they are doing it right in the Scriptures they are supposedly corrupting, Lol.  These are stupid comments; not even Muhammad said such a thing. He criticized people never the Script as some Muslim try to do today.  Pfft, I call that not only ridiculous but also a grasping at straws to no avail. Moreover, it proves that common sense is not so common.

 

of course it does

 

lets look together, shall we

 

◄  Jeremiah 8:8  ►

"'How can you say, "We are wise because we have the word of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

 

but is there evidence for this in bible, of course

 

lets have look at corruption of the bible

 

 

How many Horsemen did David Capture, 1700 or 7000?   1.  ,700 Horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4) - "And David captured from him 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers; and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots

vs.

 

2. 7,000 Horsemen (1 Chronicles 18:4) - "And David took from him 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers, and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots."

 

how many?

 

 

is there more evidence of corruption of the bible??

 

watch evidence in this short clip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jesus' alleged predictions of his own crucifixion aren't true. He didn't make such predictions. The doubting Thomas passage and the Father and I are one quote are not true, either.

 

Let's also keep in mind that God in the Bible deceives and works with evil spirits:

 

22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

 

(1 Kings)

 

Nobody should feel safe from the makr of Allah.

 

 

(None feels secure from Allah's plan except the people who are the losers.) (7:99)

 

Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "The believer performs the acts of worship, all the while feeling fear, in fright and anxiety. The Fajir (wicked sinner, or disbeliever) commits the acts of disobedience while feeling safe (from Allah's torment)!''

Here is an article refuting your claims.

 

A reply to The Biblical God As a Deceiver by Bassam Zawadi found here. Zawadi wrote in conclusion:

 

"Now Christians would argue back and ask us Muslims to understand the context and reasons why God did such a thing. However, when we tell Christians to do the same thing when it comes to analyzing certain Qur'anic verses they don't want to do it. So why should us Muslims?"

 

So, in deference to Zawadi, I will quote the context of the Qur’an in my replies.

 

The issue seems to be: did God deceive first and bring people to ruin, or did the people rebel against God choosing evil and then he brought the judgment?

 

 

1. Zawadi wrote: Jeremiah 4:10 "Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived (nasha) this people and Jerusalem by saying, 'You will have peace,' when the sword is at our throats." (Quotes from commentaries omitted here)

 

Even though it was really the false prophets who did the act of deception, the Bible is actually shifting the blame to God for actually allowing the false prophets to do the deception. This is what the "inspired" author Jeremiah said and this is what we got to accept. God deceived innocent people.

 

DMR replies:

 

In your first example of Jeremiah, the prophet questions God’s action and accuses Him of deception. The promise of peace was based on obedience, and israel was not obedient and the prophets before Jeremiah accused them of idolatry and sin. While Jeremiah accuses God of deception, Jeremiah cannot prove it. Inspiration does not mean that Jeremiah was right; it only means that he was recorded correctly. If you had read the rest of the chapter it is obvious that rebellion was in the hearts of the people long before Jeremiah appeared on the scene.

 

2. Zawadi wrote: "1 Kings 22:20-22 20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

 

Here we see that the man said that he would resort to lying in order to entice Ahab and God supported the idea and told him to go ahead and do it!

 

I personally have no moral objections to this since I believe God could at times use means of deception in order to ensure the greater good and to use deception against evil. However, Christians don't allow this when we talk about Allah deceiving evildoers in the Qur'an. These are double standards."

 

DMR replies:

 

The first issue is: was there deception without Ahab’s being evil? Did God bring about the death of an innocent man? Was the will of Yahweh from eternity decided before Ahab existed?

 

In this case, Ahab had done all kinds of wicked things, and God’s judgment came to fall on him only after the wicked deeds. The prophet’s speech was designed for the audience of the kings. Surely the infinite God did not have to ask who will entice Ahab? Moreover, note that Ahab was not left with nothing but deception. He was given the truth. The true prophet Micaiah told Ahab what would happen and the reason why all other "prophets" were saying something else. It is not that Ahab did not hear the true word of the LORD, but he deliberately rejected the message of Micaiah, and chose to believe the false prophets. He chose to believe the lies even after he was told that these were lies.

 

 

3. Zawadi wrote:

 

"We even have it in... Ezekiel 14:9-11 9 " 'And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people israel. 10 They will bear their guilt-the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.' "

 

God is punishing him for a crime that He enticed him to do in the first place? Isn't that entrapment?"

 

DMR replies:

 

In your third example, Ezekiel 14:9-11, the issue becomes effective only after the people have sinned. Verse 4 shows the idolatry of the people on the one hand, and turning to a false prophet on the other. Verse 7 gives the background of what is going on. "To every last person from the house of israel, including any of the resident aliens who live in israel--all who turn their backs on me and embrace idols, who install the wickedness that will ruin them at the center of their lives and then have the gall to go to the prophet to ask me questions--I, GOD, will step in and give the answer myself."

 

Since the false prophets deceived the people the judgment of God is that they would be deceived. God did not punish for a crime the prophet had not done.

 

 

4. Zawadi wrote: Isaiah 37:6-7 Isaiah said to them, "Tell your master, 'This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard-those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Listen! I am going to put a spirit in him so that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.' "

 

God had that spirit spread a rumor so that the King of Assyria can to return to his homeland. In short, that spirit's purpose was for deception.

 

DMR replies:

 

"Isaiah said to them, "Tell your master, ‘This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard-those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Listen! I am going to put a spirit in him so that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.’" (37:6-7)

 

This example is not helpful to your case. What is the spirit that God put in him?

 

The spirit did not tell him the report. Verse nine tells of the report that King Tirhakah of Ethiopia was on his way to attack Sennacherib. So the spirit that came upon Sennacherib was probably a spirit of fear or apprehension, not a spirit of deceit.

 

 

5. Zawadi wrote: "Another example from the Bible...Isaiah 19:14

 

The LORD has poured into them a spirit of dizziness; they make Egypt stagger in all that she does, as a drunkard staggers around in his vomit.

 

Here we see God deceiving people to the extent that they become absolutely foolish."

 

DMR replies:

 

The question has to be raised again, did God do this before they became evil and idolatrous, or after they became rebellious and idolatrous? Verse 1 declares the intention of God’s punishment after their evil deeds were done, not before. God does not punish innocent people. If you would read the whole chapter 19 you will see that it is not deception but an act of judgment by God upon Egypt. Even then the judgment is intended to bring about repentance as the rest of the passage shows. It is not really deception, is it?

 

[1]An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud

and comes to Egypt;

and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence,

and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

[2] And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians,

and they will fight, every man against his brother

and every man against his neighbor,

city against city, kingdom against kingdom;

 

And:

 

[15] And there will be nothing for Egypt

which head or tail, palm branch or reed, may do.

[16]In that day the Egyptians will be like women, and tremble with fear before the hand which the LORD of hosts shakes over them.

 

Moreover, if you continue reading, God's purpose in punishing them is to lead them to repentance so that they can be his people:

 

[18] In that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt which speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD of hosts. One of these will be called the City of the Sun.

[19]In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border.

[20] It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; when they cry to the LORD because of oppressors he will send them a savior, and will defend and deliver them.

[21] And the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians; and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day and worship with sacrifice and burnt offering, and they will make vows to the LORD and perform them.

[22] And the LORD will smite Egypt, smiting and healing, and they will return to the LORD, and he will heed their supplications and heal them.

[23]In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians.

[24]In that day israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth,

[25] whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and israel my heritage."

 

So, again, how is this an example of deception?

 

 

6. Zawadi wrote: "Even though I don't believe the Gospels teach that Jesus taught he was God, however this example is for those who believe that Jesus is God. Jesus admits that he was speaking figuratively all this time...John 16:25 25"Though I have been speaking figuratively (paroimia), a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. The word paroimia could mean...

 

1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking a) a current or trite saying, a proverb 2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth

 

a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons c) an allegory 1) extended and elaborate metaphor

 

Source: www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1146511128-5176.html

 

Why wasn't Jesus speaking in a normal and clear way all the time? Why did Jesus then go and say that he won't 'use this kind of language'? Well, here we find out why..."

 

DMR replies: John 16:25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively (paroimia), a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."

 

You divert the issue by appealing to the passage in Mark, to which we will go in a moment, but if you had read on you would have found that the disciples had a reaction that is expressed in the following: "I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father." His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure! Now we know that you know all things, and need none to question you; by this we believe that you came from God." John 16:28-30.

 

So there is no deception here. There is clarity of communication. The clarity comes about because of the slowness of the disciples to understand who Jesus really was, the Son of God. Figures of speech are not deceptive. They are used to bring meaning to people who do not understand.

 

 

7. Zawadi wrote: Mark 4:10-12 10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that," 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' So here we see that Jesus was deceiving certain people by speaking in parables so that they won't (and God forbid!) REPENT AND BE FORGIVEN!

 

DMR replies:

 

In the previous chapter Jesus has been charged with being in cohoots with the Devil and he talked about the sin against the Holy Spirit which was an eternal sin. The Pharisees, Scribes, and Herodians counseled together to see how they would seek to destroy Him. They saw the miracles, but did not "see" and they heard him teach but "did not understand" because their hearts were hard and convinced that he was possessed by the Devil. Someone has said, God "reveals His family secrets to those whose hearts are open."

 

The lack of perception and willingness to hear and obey was indicated by Isaiah long ago and Jesus and Paul reflect that truth. Acts declares, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: 'Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen." (Acts. 28:26-28)

 

What made the people’s heart heavy? God or themselves? There is only one answer and that is people who choose the world rather than God. Jesus began preaching "repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Their response–they rejected his message.

 

 

8. Zawadi wrote: "2 Thessalonians 2:11 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie So God will delude people so that they can believe lies?"

 

DMR replies:

 

Now, why would you use this verse as it has not happened yet? Again, the question arises, does this take place before they became wicked or after. Obviously, the context is after. This chapter begins with the concerns about the coming of Jesus again. It relates to the end of the world and final judgment. So it has no taken place, and the people describes here are wicked.

 

The whole context is: "The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. 2:9-12)

 

Note that they refused to love the truth and be saved. Only then does God act. They not only disbelieved the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Please note the previous verse, "And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming." (2 Thess. 2:8)

 

Note again: These people had been given the truth (v. 10 and 12, underlined above), but they refused it. Only then are they given a powerful deception.

Edited by Heavens Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so your logic says Jesus is more special beacuse his mother gave birth to him without male intervention

 

while ADAM WHO HAD NO MOTHER NOR FATHHER IS NOT MORE SPECIAL WHEN IT COMES TO CREATION OF THESE TWO GREAT PROPHETS.

 

what kind of logic is that??? when it comes to creation, how can jesus be more special or even be equal to adam who had no mother nor father while jesus had mother at least.

 

 

 

yes, but the title "Word of God" is only on jesus.

 

 

 

yes, that is true, we muslims believe that also.

 

 

that is not correct translation of the original text of the bible, it should be and the Word was divine (not God)

 

evidence:

 

 

1) Mistranslation of the text:

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

In yet another Bible we read:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt

Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.

If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

Jesus is more special then Adam not because of his birth but because he was God incarnate.

 

On the translation error. I have already shown you how it doesn't change the meaning of the verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the illusion of Jesus, peace be upon him, getting crucified did not result in the false religion. The fact that men made up lies did. Jesus, peace be upon him, never said he was crucified for anybody's sins nor did he claim to be God. Thus, if people decided to make up a theology behind the appeared crucifixion, it does not mean that God's plan was self-defeating.

If, as you say, Jesus' crucifixion was a lie it was also being told by the apostles. Many of the church fathers were taught by the apostles or by their disciples. Here is what they say on his divinity.

 

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

 

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

 

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

 

 

 

Aristides

"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

 

 

 

Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

 

 

 

Melito of Sardis

"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

 

 

 

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

 

 

 

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

 

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

 

 

 

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

 

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

 

 

 

Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

 

 

 

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

 

 

 

Hippolytus of Rome

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

 

 

 

Novatian

"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

 

 

 

Cyprian of Carthage

"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

 

 

 

Gregory the Wonderworker

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

 

 

 

Arnobius

"‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).

 

 

 

Lactantius

"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

 

"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [but w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this is according to teachings of Paul. I am not sure if it is in this thread or another but technically speaking the Old Testament was already being corrupted before the time of Jesus. With only a small group of people able to read or write this was very easy as it was the scribes who controlled the Torah. It was part of a culling process, this was done time and again to edit. Many even today will admit to this as much of the Torah as we now know it was originally oral .

 

The only verse I can think of where there is any indication of what you are speaking is 1 John 1:1 .... outside of that there is verse after verse about Jesus saying to worship the father.

As I have said before, based on Galatians the apostles supported Paul's teachings.

 

For your corruption claims see my earlier post.

 

In addition to John 1:1 there are these. Christ’s divinity is shown over and over again in the New Testament. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

 

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

 

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

 

That isn't even covering what the early church fathers had to say on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmed Deedat discussed the following:

 

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.(John 16: 12,13,14)

 

Deedat asks the following question: 'I am asking my Christian brother for the past 14 years, I don't want many solutions, give me one that the Holy Ghost gave you in 2000 years, one. something that Jesus Christ had not already told you, in so many different words, one, any church, any denomination, any cult. Bring me one new thing that the Holy Ghost gave you'.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnRPI2wHS4

 

Saying something like:

- What is new in this?? Where is the new thing that was presented to the Christians which Jesus could not tell you? As Ahmed Deedat knew like we know today, Christians cannot even point out one new thing, never mind many things.

 

The Christians claim they love Jesus but they reject his brother in faith Muhammad who came to complete the message of the same God they believe in. Prophet Muhammad was the one who taught us new things, who guided us to the truth and who taught us what is yet to come.

Here are some. Make what you will of them.

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2013/03/stories-of-hell-in-lives-of-saints.html?m=1

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2012/04/amazing-stories-from-purgatory-and.html?m=1

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2012/03/natuzza-evolo-stigmatic-blood-writings.html?m=1

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2012/01/teresa-musco-stigmatic-mystic-victim.html?m=1

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/miraculous-story-of-claude-newman-his.html?m=1

 

Here are more.

 

In 1205, while praying in the Church of San Damiano just outside Assisi, Saint Francis of Assisi reported a vision in which an image of Jesus came alive and told him: "Francis, Francis, go and repair My house which, as you can see, is falling into ruins." This vision lead Saint Francis to renounce the outlook of his merchant family, embrace poverty and form the Franciscan order. For several centuries thereafter, the Franciscans became a key force in the renewal of the reach of Christianity. During another vision in 1224 Saint Francis reportedly received the very first recorded case of stigmata.

 

Starting in 1208, Saint Juliana of Liege had visions of Christ which she kept a secret for almost 20 years. In these visions she was reportedly told to institute a solemn feast for the Blessed Sacrament as the Body of Christ. When she eventually reported her visions to her confessor, the information was relayed to the bishop. Years later, in 1264, Pope Urban IV (who was formerly the Archdeacon of Liege) formally declared the feast of Corpus Christi for the whole Latin Rite, as the first papally sanctioned universal feast for the Latin Rite.[19]

 

Saint Catherine of Siena

In her early life, Saint Catherine of Siena was a withdrawn Dominican tertiary who lived, fasted and prayed at home in Siena Italy. In 1366, when she was 19 years old she reported her first vision of Jesus after which she started to tend to the sick and the poor. In 1370 she reported a vision in which she was commanded to abandon her life of solitude and to make an impact on the world. She corresponded with Pope Gregory XI and other people in authority, begging for peace and for the reformation of the clergy, writing over 300 letters. Her arguments, and her trip to Avignon, eventually became instrumental in the decision of Pope Gregory XI to return the Avignon Papacy to Rome where she was summoned to live until her death. She is one of only three female Doctors of the Church.

 

In 1372 Saint Julian of Norwich was on her deathbed and had been given her last rites when she reported a series of visions of Jesus, followed by a sudden recovery. Almost twenty years later she wrote about these visions in her book “Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love” perhaps the first book in the English language written by a woman, presumably because she was unfamiliar with Latin. Her book mentions her illness and her recovery as she saw the shining image of Christ. The sixteen revelations start with the crown of thorns and proceed through the death of Jesus, ending with his resurrection and how Christ still dwells in the souls of those who love him. She is also celebrated in the Anglican Church.

 

 

Our Lady of Guadalupe.

In 1531, Saint Juan Diego reported an early morning vision of the Virgin Mary in which he was instructed to build an abbey on the Hill of Tepeyac in Mexico. The local prelate did not believe his account and asked for a miraculous sign, which was later provided as an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe permanently imprinted on the saint’s cloak where he had gathered roses. Over the years, Our Lady of Guadalupe became a symbol of the Catholic faith in Mexico. By 1820 when the Mexican War of Independence from Spanish colonial rule ended Our Lady of Guadalupe had come to symbolize the Mexican nation. Today it remains a strong national and religious symbol in Mexico.

 

On St. Peter's Day in 1559, Saint Teresa of Avila (Teresa de Jesús) reported a vision of Jesus present to her in bodily form. For almost two years thereafter she reported similar visions. In some visions she suffered bodily pain which led to the motto often associated with her: "Lord, either let me suffer or let me die." Saint Teresa’s visions transformed her life and she became a key figure in the Catholic Church eventually being recognized as one of only three female Doctors of the Church. One of her visions is the subject of Bernini's famous work The Ecstasy of St Theresa in the basilica of Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome.

 

In the early 17th century, Venerable María de Jesús de Ágreda reported a number of mystical experiences, visions and conversations with the Blessed Virgin Mary. She stated that the Blessed Virgin had inspired and dictated passages in the book Mystical City of God as a biography of the Virgin Mary. The book Mystical City of God is still frequently studied in college and university programs of Spanish language and culture. However, the book (which makes a number of somewhat unusual claims) has remained controversial within the Roman Catholic church, having been banned and restored a number of times, and her process of beatification (started in 1673) has not been completed.[20][21]

 

From 1673 to 1675, Saint Marguerite Marie Alacoque recalled a series of visions of Christ speaking to her. In December 1673 she reported that Jesus permitted her to rest her head upon his heart, and then disclosed to her the wonders of his love. This led her to the founding of the Devotion of the Sacred Heart. Initially, her life, actions, beliefs and writings became the subject of extreme scrutiny by the Catholic Church. However, she was eventually declared a saint in 1920 and the Feast of the Sacred Heart is now officially celebrated 19 days after Pentecost.

 

At her profession as a Capuchin Poor Clare nun in 1678, Saint Veronica Giuliani expressed a great desire to suffer in union with the crucified Jesus for the conversion of sinners.[22] Shortly after that time she reported a series of vision of Jesus and the Virgin Mary that lasted a number of years. She reported a vision of Christ bearing his cross and of the chalice symbolizing the Passion of Christ. On Good Friday 1697 she received the five wounds of Christ as stigmata.[23]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes they have and this is admitted on both the Catholic website and via the history channel not to mention several Christian scholars. The Old Testament was corrupted through what they refer to as a kind of culling. Assuming that the original writings were correct no one actually knows what occurred in the various council meetings after the church was taken over by the former pagan emperor. This is of course assuming that the writings were not corrupted before hand and you believe that Paul was not a false prophet.

2. a. Muhammad was illiterate

b. There is little evidence that Muhammad had any significant contact with Christians, & if he was borrowing from scripture why would he himself be scared upon returning from the mountain.

c. While some might argue this is a possibility the problem is that in the time frame that this would have had to take place it was already memorized by vastly more than there is today and many of these were in a position that they could have had a direct effect should someone try to corrupt it. There were too many that knew it.

 

Many of the original Christians dropped off after Christianity became the official religion of Rome, why? American politicians have corrupted the original constitution and very few have noticed why would it be so implausible for the Bible. I will post links later unless someone wants to for me

First, you claim Constantine( I am assuming that is the ex pagan emperor you refer to) used the councils to approve his vision of Christianity. However, Constantine was an Arian supporter. If, as you claim, Constantine twisted the councils most of us Christians would be Arians and would have accepted Muhammad as a prophet with no problems.

 

Second as the link below shows pre-Islamic trade routes went through both Byzantine territory and Persian land. As Muhammad was a merchant, he would have traveled these paths at least once. Thus he would have had at least minimal contact with Christians and Zoroastrians as well as a few Jews. That is not even considering Christians and Jews in Arabia who he may have met.

http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/main/295264/16923904

 

On C. if my Im not mistaken several verses were lost as those who memorized them forgot the verses or died.

 

Finally could you give me a source on Christians leaving Christianity after it became the official religion of Rome? Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everything in the Bible is false. Thus, if something in Matthew happens to be true, it is no surprise. Jesus', peace be upon him, biography was widely told at the time. The author of Matthew heard something which was true and then gave it his own spin.

 

Simply stating that the Qur'anic information regarding embryology was taken from other sources won't suffice. You have to show proof. Thus, I won't retract anything.

 

However, let's say for the sake of argument that the information was in earlier sources. Those earlier sources also held incorrect ideas while the Qur'an does not. Thus, indicating that the Qur'an filters truth from falsehood. Back in history, nobody could really test embryological information. Thus, Galen's guess regarding things which he could not directly observe due to a lack of technology, i.e. microscopes, was as good as the next man's. If you read my text carefully, I did not say that there is absolutely no way that the scientific information in the Qur'an was not in previous works.

Here is an article I read once on embryology in Islam.

 

In the early 1980s, Prof. Keith Moore, formerly an anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada produced a special edition of his embryology textbook, the standard version of which has been widely used in medical schools around the world. Apparently when he first read what the Qur'an had to say about the development of the human embryo he was "astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established"[1]. Much has subsequently been written by Muslims in an attempt to demonstrate that the Qur'an, which is claimed to be God's ultimate revelation contains statements about how humans develop inside the womb which could not possibly have been known at the time that it was revealed to Muhammed. Indeed, a recent book confirms the extent to which this has been happening:

 

Dubai's medical school recently introduced a compulsory course for all students: Islamic Medicine. The program seeks to link all modern medicine, including genetics, to the Koran. Such courses have their genesis in orthodox Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have spent considerable sums on medical conferences at which leading Western scientists are asked to confirm that Koranic verses, which seem vague to the layperson, are in fact specific predictors of modern science. Videos and pamphlets from the conferences have been circulated throughout the Muslim world by the Saudis [2].

 

If it is indeed true that certain verses accurately foretell modern scientific ideas which could not be tested in the seventh century, then it implies that the Qur'an must have had a divine author. It is the intention of this paper to examine what exactly was known about the human embryo at the time of Muhammed in order to see whether any of the theories expressed in the Qur'an were true or indeed well known before this time.

 

 

 

The origins of life according to the Qur'an

 

There are at least 60 verses which deal explicitly with human reproduction and development, but these are scattered throughout the Qur'an and many of the themes are repeated over and over again, as is common to much of the book. A useful place to begin would be the material out of which we are created. One would expect the Qur'an to be unambiguous about such an elementary matter, but the verses listed show just how much uncertainty there appears to be in our origins. Note that except where indicated the translation used is the translation of Yusuf Ali (Saudi Revised Edition).

 

Could it be from earth?

 

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

 

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

 

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay

17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay

32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

 

Did we come from nothing?

 

19:67 We created him before out of nothing

 

No, we did not!

 

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

 

Did we come from mud?

 

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)

23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)

38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

 

Or water?

 

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

 

Could it be dust?

 

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust

30:20 He created you from dust

35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

 

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

 

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead

39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)

 

To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly we are made of, it has been suggested that all of the above are complimentary accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be made of dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in direct scientific conflict with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans, but Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth.

 

 

 

The drop of fluid or semen

 

In a number of places we are informed that man is created from a drop of fluid (semen, seed or sperm):

 

16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)

16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop

32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised fluid

35:11 ... then from a little fluid (Pickthall)

53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured forth (Pickthall)

53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)

56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)

56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit

75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth (Pickthall)

75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?

76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (Pickthall)

76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm

77:20 Did We not create you from a worthless water (semen, etc.)? (Al-Hilali & Khan)

80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him

86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

 

Could any of this have been known to sixth-century Muslims at the time of Muhammed? Surely that procreation involves the emission of a drop of fluid has been well known from the earliest days of civilization. In Genesis 38:9 the Bible tells us that Onan "spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother". The verses which describe the origin of life as a drop of emitted fluid are therefore no more than a direct observation as to what is released during the act of sexual intercourse. We hardly need to rely upon divine inspiration to inform us of this fact.

 

In the verses listed above nutfah is used when describing the fluid which gushes out during sexual intercourse and clearly this can only refer to semen. However, Prof. Moore is keen to translate nutfah in sura 76:2 as "mingled fluid" [3] and explains that this Arabic term refers to the male and female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female egg). While it is true that the ancient Greeks would not have been able to see individual sperm or eggs, these only being visible through the microscope, the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah. This can reasonably be translated semen, or at a push, germinal fluid - which was a term used as early as Hippocrates [4] who spoke of male and female reproductive fluids (but obviously could not have been aware of the cells contained in the fluids). If Moore wishes to translate nutfah as germinal fluid, he inadvertently reinforces that the Qur'an is borrowing this term from the Greeks.

 

Sura 86:6 is interesting since it claims that during the act of sexual intercourse before which a man is created, the "gushing fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is apparently coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real problem for we know that the testicles are the sites of sperm production (although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced. Aristotle for example amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse [5]).

 

The explanation offered by Muslims [6] for the strange statement in this sura relates to the fact that the testicles originally develop from tissue in the area of the kidneys, when the man from whom sperm is gushing forth was himself an embryo. In other words, in a very convoluted fashion the sperm originates from the area between the loins and ribs because that is where the testicles which are producing the sperm originally form.

 

There is a rather less complicated explanation for this verse however. The Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers taught in the fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis [7]. Clearly according to this view sperm originates from the region of the kidneys, and although there is obviously no substance to this teaching today, it was well-known in Muhammed's day, and shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement.

 

 

 

A bust of Hippocrates

 

Of course it could be argued against all this that the reference to coming from the loins is merely a metaphorical figure of speech. We can find examples of this in sura 7:172 "when thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants" or 4:23 "prohibited to you (for marriage) are ... wives of your sons proceeding from your loins". But if so then it has to be accepted that this is a common usage for Middle Eastern cultures [8]; in the Torah God promises Jacob that "kings shall come out of your loins (chalatzecha)" (Gen 35:11). Later in the Bible a promise is made to David's "son that shall come forth out of your loins" (I Kings 8:19) and in the New Testament Peter refers to the same person as "one from the fruit of his loins" (Greek osphus). However, these are examples of a metaphorical use of the word "loins" (Arabic sulb). Sura 86:6 is clearly talking about the physical act of intercourse; gushing fluid and ribs (tar a'ib) are both very physical and in the context of this verse they clearly refer to the site of semen production as wrongly taught by Hippocrates. So we have found the first example of an incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the Qur'an.

 

 

 

Embryological development in the Qur'an

 

Sura 22:5 says "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Sura 23:13-14 repeats this idea by saying God "placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature." 75:38 also says man becomes an alaqa and 96:2 says we came from alaq.

 

Moore however goes further and incredibly he claims in a later edition of his textbook that the Qur'an "states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning" [9]. This really would be amazing if it was true. Actually the Qur'an says nothing of the sort.

 

We have to ask what the precise meaning of these words is in order to know whether the verses contain important scientific statements that have only recently been discovered, as Moore and others claim. In comparison with the meaning of nutfah, it is rather more difficult to understand what alaqa means. Many different suggestions have been made: clot (Pickthall, Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan, Hamidullah), small lump of blood (Kasimirski), leech-like clot (Yusuf Ali), and "leech, suspended thing or blood clot" (Moore, op. cit.). Moore suggests that the appearance of an embryo of 24 days' gestation resembles a leech, though this is rather debatable. In side view the developing umbilicus (genetically part of the embryo) is almost as big as the "leech-shaped" part into which a human is formed and the developing placenta (which also consists of tissue that is genetically from the embryo) is much larger than the embryo. It is claimed that the ancient sages would not have been able to see an embryo about 3mm long and describe it as leech-like, but Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus wall in the fourth century B.C. [10]. It is impossible to believe the suggestion of Bachir Torki [11] that alaq in 96:2 means links, referring to the gene code of DNA, as this makes a nonsense out of other verses where the word is used, such as 22:5 ("we made you from a drop of sperm, then from that a gene code, then from that a little lump of flesh....").

 

 

 

A 24/25 day embryo at the alaqa stage, approx. 2 mm long

 

To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) [12]. He says that alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood. In 96:2 the word alaq is used, which is both a collective plural and a verbal noun. The latter form conveys the sense of man being created from clinging material or possibly clay, which is consistent with the creation of Adam in the Bible from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and some of the other Qur'anic verses listed above. However, the translators of the Qur'an have all translated alaq as "clot" as opposed to "clinging" in 96:2 because the use of the singular alaqa elsewhere forces them to use "clot" here too, despite the attraction for the meaning "clinging" or leech-like which is perhaps more scientifically accurate.

 

Another source of information are the early Muslim commentators. Ibn Kathir wrote that when the drop of water (nutfah) settled in the womb it stayed there for forty days and then became a red clot (alaqa), staying there for another forty days before turning to mudghah, a piece of flesh without shape or form. Finally it began to take on a shape and form. Both ar-Razi and as-Suyuti [13] claimed that the dust referred both to Adam's creation and to the man's discharge; nutfah referred to the water from the male and alaqa was a solidified piece of blood clot. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (died about AD 1350) wrote that "the foetus is a living or dead babe animal which is sometimes found in the womb of a slaughtered animal, and its blood is congested" [14]. Another great physician, Ibn al-Quff wrote some 13 out of 60 chapters from "On Health Preservation" about embryology and pregnancy. He included a further stage of development one week after conception, the foam stage or raghwah. Up to 16 days the embryo was alaqa (clot) and after 27 to 30 days the clot turns into a lump of meat, mudghah [15]. These dates must be regarded as very approximate but are nevertheless a major improvement on what one of the most reliable Hadiths says about foetal development, as we shall see later.

 

 

 

A 26/27 day embryo, said to resemble a mouthful of flesh, but only 3 mm long

 

Moving onto the next stage of development, Razi described the mudghah as being a little piece of meat the size of what a man can chew. The idea that mudghah means chewed flesh is a later, and less accurate translation of the word, but the idea has persisted because it is claimed that the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine. It must be said that not only is this an imaginative interpretation however, but besides, Moore cannot claim that the mudghah should occur at 26-27 days since at that point the embryo is a mere 4mm long. One would have to wait around 8 weeks before the embryo was the size of chewed flesh (if a mouthful is defined as being 20-30mm wide), which is what mudghah really means. And in the following Hadith, transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim, Muhammed claims that the mudghah stage occurs between days 80 and 120. Yet by this time the foetus is considerably larger than a lump of flesh the size of which a man can chew, and looks very human-like and totally unlike meat.

 

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that Allah's Messenger ... said: "Verily your creation is on this wise. The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of blood [sperm?], after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends his angel to it ..."

Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days, then becomes a clot for a further 40 days, then a lump of flesh for 40 days [16]. It has been shown that human sperm can only survive inside a woman's reproductive tract for a maximum of 7 days; at 80 days the embryo has very definitely acquired the shape of a human being and looks nothing like either a clot or a mouthful of flesh.

 

 

 

An eleven week foetus, real size 7.5 cm, but according to Muhammed still at the alaqa stage, a clot of blood

 

The final stage of human development which the Qur'an describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh. However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle ("flesh") develops [17]. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen, as we shall see shortly.

 

 

 

Some possible explanations

 

Aristotle believed that humans originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood [18] which leaves us with something of a dilemma. If we translate alaqa as "clot" it means that the Qur'an is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother incidentally) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. So if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarrying flesh. Since Muhammed had several wives it is entirely likely that he would be very familiar with miscarriages. Alternatively it could be hinting at Aristotle's incorrect belief that the embryo originated from the combination of male sperm and female menstrual blood.

 

Moore avoids this problem by translating alaqa as a leech, since he is well aware that there is no stage in development when the embryo is a clot. As we have seen however, this is only to justify his interpretation that an embryo of 24-25 days is a clinging leech-like alaqa and one at 26-27 days is a mudghah with teeth-marks. A further problem with this view is that if the alaqa is translated "leech" because it appears to be clinging to the uterus wall, does this mean that the foetus only clings to the uterus wall for a few days? Obviously it remains attached for the entire nine months of gestation.

 

There are other problems with Moore's interpretation too. Not least is the claim of Muhammed that the dates of the alaqa and mudghah were 40-80 days and 80-120 days of gestation respectively, rather than 24-25 days and 26-27 days. It also begs the question as to why, if the Qur'an really is giving us a highly precise scientific account of human development, it only mentions four stages, nutfah, alaqa, mudghah, plus the clothing of bones with flesh. Between fertilization and day 28 for example Moore lists no fewer than 13 stages in his textbook. Why does the Qur'an say nothing about any of these other stages? The reality is that the more ambiguous the meaning of the Arabic terms, and the more meanings that can be attached to certain words, the less convincingly can they be said to be highly precise scientific terms.

 

However, the most convincing explanation, and the most worrying for those who maintain that the Qur'an is God's eternal Word, untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the Qur'an is merely repeating the teaching of the enormously influential Greek physician Galen. If this is the case, not only is the Qur'an wrong, but it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!

 

 

 

A picture of Galen

 

 

 

 

 

The Asclepion at Pergamon (modern Bergama in Turkey)

[Click here for further pictures of this hospital]

 

The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.

 

Galen: De Semine in Greek

 

 

 

English translation:

 

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...

 

... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow [19].

 

 

 

Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14 in Arabic for comparison

 

 

 

English translation:

 

Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!

 

The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes

 

"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" [21].

 

 

 

Stages of development - a modern idea?

 

It has been said that the idea of the embryo developing through stages is a modern one, and that the Qur'an is anticipating modern embryology by depicting differing stages. However many ancient writers besides Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. For example in the Jewish Talmud we learn that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology [22]. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as

 

golem (formless, rolled-up thing);

shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);

'ubbar (something carried);

v'alad (child);

v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and

ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).

Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion about abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts. This makes a nonsense of the Qur'anic verse which says (71:14) "When He created you by (divers) stages".

 

 

 

More examples of borrowing from ancient Greek writers

 

If we look at what the ancient Greeks taught we can clearly see that all the other references to embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can also be traced directly back to them. For example there is a Hadith in which Muhammed is questioned about why a group of red camels have a grey camel among them, and it is due to a hidden trait. But Aristotle noticed that babies who were born that looked unlike either of their parents would often take on the appearance of their grandparents [23], so that the characteristic skipped a generation, being what we now know as recessive. He also tells us of a woman from Elis who took a black husband and although their daughter was not black, their daughter's daughter was black, demonstrating a gene which skipped a generation in exactly the same way as Muhammed described [24].

 

Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed" [25]. Surely this is not referring to dominant and recessive genes at all, as certain Muslims have claimed [26], but is simply repeating the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm. The sex of the resulting child is determined by which sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity:

 

"... both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male being stronger than the female must originate from a stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a stronger sperm then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak form, then a female is the result. But if © one partner produces one kind of sperm, and the other another then the resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity. For suppose that the weak sperm is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and, being mixed with weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results in a male" [27].

 

Earlier in the Hadith, Muhammed says that the reproductive substance of men is white and that of women is yellow. This sounds very much like the content, white and yellow, that is found inside developing chick-eggs, and which Aristotle was known to dissect [28].

 

Later in the same Hadith an angel is apparently sent by Allah to shape the embryo and ask what sex it is going to be. Notwithstanding that sex is actually determined at the moment of conception according to whether the fertilised egg has two X chromosomes (female) or an X and Y chromosome (male), and that there is some ambiguity about the age of the embryo when the angel appears (Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported that Muhammed said 40 or perhaps 50 days, not 42, and Abu Tufail maintains that Muhammed said to Hudhaifa b. Usaid that sperm resided in the womb for 40 days), Hippocrates taught that it took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female embryo [29]. No wonder the angel has to wait for forty-two days before it learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of gestation the ovaries and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge around 9 weeks.

 

Sura 39:6 says that God made us in stages in threefold darkness. There have been many interpretations of this verse, including that of as-Suyuti who said that there were three membranes surrounding the foetus, one to carry nutrients to it, another to absorb its urine, and the third to absorb other waste products. Elsewhere it has been suggested that they are the abdominal wall, the uterine wall and the amniotic sac in which the foetus sits. This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as Hippocrates described dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the uterus [30]. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the wombs of her pregnant slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius [31]. Furthermore, the Romans introduced the custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died before she had delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus giving rise to the term "Caesarean section".

 

It is said by Muslims that sura 80:20 describes how easy Allah has made it for delivery of the infant, but this contradicts sura 46:15 ("his mother beareth him with reluctance and bringeth him forth with reluctance"). In fact 80:19 is talking about man's origins from a drop of sperm, and 80:21 about his death and burial, so it is entirely logical that 80:20 refers not to the process of parturition (giving birth) but to the whole of man's life being made easy for him by God. In the context this makes a lot more sense, does not contradict 46:15 and does not go against the weight of obstetrical evidence that makes giving birth one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her life. (In Mozambique, childbirth is the seventh most common cause of death in women, and worldwide a woman dies in labour every 53 seconds.) The Biblical teaching that women give birth with much pain (Genesis 3:16) is far more realistic.

 

Sura 46:15 also says, "The duration of pregnancy and separation [weaning] is thirty months" and sura 31:14 informs us that "his separation is at the end of two years". This implies that the duration of a normal pregnancy is six months. Nowadays with advanced neonatal facilities it is just possible for a small proportion of babies born at 24 weeks' gestation to survive, albeit with severe disabilities in many cases. In Muhammed's day no babies could have survived at so premature an age, and the Qur'an is wildly inaccurate about the duration of a normal pregnancy.

 

Sura 33:4 says that Allah has not put two hearts into any man. Yet duplication of the heart has been admitted, albeit with reluctance by Geoffrey-Saint-Hilaire and celebrated anatomists including Littre, Meckel, Colomb, Panum, Behr, Paullini, Rhodius, Winslow and Zacutus Lusitanus [32].

 

In other places the Qur'an contains commands which have been claimed to be fantastically advanced and sensible, when in fact they were known and followed by far more ancient civilizations. In sura 2:222, Allah tells Muhammed that menstruation is an illness and men must not have sexual intercourse with their wives until they are cleansed from their periods. Yet 2000 years earlier Moses received the command not to have sexual intercourse during a woman's period (Torah: Leviticus 18:19) but this was very definitely not for health reasons, but for religious, ceremonial reasons. Having sex during one's period is hardly likely to cause male infertility, endometriosis and fallopian tube damage, as has been claimed by some Muslims with no scientific evidence, even if it might be unpleasant for the couple. But perhaps more importantly menstruation is not an illness; indeed the shedding of the endometrial layer of the uterus helps to prevent uterine cancer. Progesterone has to be included in hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal women to induce an artificial menstruation every month to prevent a build-up of endometrium which could become cancerous!

 

 

 

But how could Muhammed have known these things?

 

It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same embryological ideas as those described originally by the ancient Greeks, but is there any way in which we can be sure that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].

 

The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.

 

The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine [35].

 

Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur [36].

 

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]

 

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [41]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [42]

 

Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. Interestingly Nadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories? As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 [39].

 

So we have just the link we need to show how "The translations (into Syriac) of Sergius Ras el Ain, penetrated to Jandi-Shapur. During the first years of the 7th century [more likely the end of the sixth century], Harith ben Kalada studied medicine there and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we easily recognize the traces of Greek (medicine)." [44] To summarise: Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign, and may even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen from Greek into Syriac. Halfway through his reign Chosroes founded Jundishapur, where Galen's manuscripts must surely have been kept in translation. Towards the end of his reign he had an audience with Harith Ibn Kalada, who later became associated with Muhammed.

 

We also know that according to Muslim traditions part of at least one verse in the Qur'an that relates to the developing human came originally from human lips. While Muhammed was dictating verse 23:14 to `Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, the latter got carried away by the beauty of what he heard about the creation of man, and when Muhammed reached the words "another creature" his companion uttered the exclamation "Blessed be God, the best of creators!" Muhammed accepted these words as though they were the continuation of his revelation and told Ibn Abi Sarh to write them down, even though they were quite clearly his companion's words, not Muhammed's or Allah's words [45].

 

This really does beg the question: since we know that at least one verse of the Qur'an contains the added words of a mere human being, how can we possibly be sure that this did not happen anywhere else in the Qur'an?

 

After the fall of Alexandria in AD 642 knowledge of Greek medicine spread even more rapidly throughout the Arab world. In the 9th century Hunain Ibn Ishaq (AD 809-873) made perhaps the definitive Arabic translation of Hippocrates and Galen [46], [47], [48] and al-Kindi wrote over twenty medical treatises, including one specifically on Hippocrates.

 

Indeed, the writers of the Arabic medical literature acknowledge as their sources the major Greek and Indian medical traditions. For example, one of the earliest Arabic compendiums of medicine is Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom" [49], [50], written by a Christian convert to Islam in about 850 at Samarra in Mesopotamia. In it he said that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle regarding how to write his treatise. It contains 360 chapters, and the fourth Discourse, beginning at chapter 325 is entitled "From the Summaries of Indian Books". Chapter 330, from Sushrata, "The Genesis of the Embryo and of the Members" claims that the embryo results from mixing of sperm and menstrual blood (vis-a-vis Aristotle!) and describes various constituents of the embryo. The medical historian Arthur Meyer summed up the whole of the Arabic embryological tradition when he said that at-Tabari "depended largely upon Greek sources, which would seem to imply that he could obtain little from the Arabs. Moreover, since Aristotelian and Galenical teaching survived side by side for over a thousand years without a known Arabic counterpart, it is doubtful if the latter existed" [51].

 

An extraordinary passage from the writings of the medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya shows how heavily the later Arabic writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse [52] the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain Hippocrates. For example:

 

"Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month ...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one formation after another in three darknesses'. Since each of these membranes has its own darkness, when God mentioned the stages of creation and transformation from one state to another, He also mentioned the darknesses of the membranes. Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, 'The ears are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid.' The Prophet used to say, 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my hearing and eyesight' etc. etc" [53].

 

Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates (bold type), the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine.

 

Other embryologists were known but added nothing new to Galen, for example Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn 'Abdallah Ibn Sina (AD 980-1037) who wrote a Canon Medicinae. Clement of Alexandria included familiar information and believed that the embryo was formed through the combination of semen and menstrual blood. Lactantius of Nicomedia in AD 325 opened eggs at varying stages of development.

 

 

 

It seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qur'an to risk his reputation as a highly respected professor of anatomy in the medical establishment. The Islamic edition of his textbook is not available even in the British Library or the US Library of Congress, let alone other medical libraries in Western countries [54], presumably because he is aware that not only do the Islamic contributions in it contradict known science, but they also contradict what he has written in the standard version of his textbook. And ironically in the bibliography for the first chapter, "A history of embryology", in both the standard and Islamic versions he refers to Needham's important work on the history of embryology [55]. Needham however is unimpressed with the Arabic claims of embryology and after writing almost 60 pages about ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian embryology he dismisses the entire Arabic tradition in less than one page, concluding that "Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology". After listing some of the verses in the Qur'an about embryology he dismisses them as merely "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda" [56], in other words a mixture of Greek and ancient Indian teachings. In the most recent (1998) edition of The Developing Human, Moore also directs his readers to a book which contains another essay by Basim Musallam, which again points out how similar the Qur'anic science of embryology was to that of Galen, and how this close association was never questioned by the ancient Muslim scholars [57].

 

In conclusion then there is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that was not well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek and Indian physicians many centuries before the Qur'an was written. Morever, much of what the Qur'an actually does say about embryology is scientifically inaccurate. The ancient physicians' works were translated into Syriac in the century preceeding Muhammed, and were therefore accessible to non-Greek speakers. We know that one of the Companions of the Prophet was a doctor who trained at the very same medical school that the Greek translations were kept and taught at. We even know that at least one of the verses which describes embryology, sura 23:14 contains the words of another of Muhammed's companions. We are forced to conclude that, far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an, its embryological statements actually provide further convincing evidence for its human origins.

 

References

 

Keith L. Moore (Saunders, 1982) The Developing Human, 3rd edition with Islamic Additions, p. viiic

J. Goodwin (Plume/Penguin, 1995) Price of Honor - Muslim Women Lift The Veil Of Silence On The Islamic World, p. 145

Moore, op. cit., pp. 14a, 446f

Hippocratic Writings (Penguin Classics, 1983) p. 320

Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1953) Generation of Animals, 717b

Famsy Conference, 8 July 1995; a related explanation is made here.

Hippocratic Writings, op. cit., pp. 317-8

W. Campbell (Middle East Resources, 1986) The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, pp. 181-182

K. L. Moore, (Saunders, 1998) The Developing Human, 6th edition, p. 10

Aristotle, op. cit., 740a

B. Torki (1979) L'Islam Religion de la Science, p. 178

Al Munjid fil Lugha wala'aam (Dar Al Mashreq sarl, Lebanon, 1987)

As-Suyuti, trans. Elgood (Ta-Ha, 1994) As-Suyuti's Medicine of the Prophet, p. 184ff

Iman Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (English trans. Mahammad Al-Akili, Pearl, 1993) Natural Healing with the Medicine of the Prophet, p. 284

Sami K. Hamarneh (Cairo, 1974), The Physician, Therapist and Surgeon Ibn al-Quff, p. 105

al-Bukhari, 8.593; Muslim Kitab an-Nikah, MCII

K. L. Moore, op. cit.(1998), pp. 56, 63, chapters 15 and 16

Aristotle, op. cit., 729a

Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10 pp. 92-95, 101

A. W. Meyer (Stanford, 1939) The Rise of Embryology, p. 27

B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54

J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 77

Aristotle, op. cit., 767b, 769a

Aristotle, op. cit., 722a

Sahih Muslim CXXV (entitled "The characteristic of the male reproductive substance and the female reproductive substance, and that the offspring is produced by the contribution of both")

Famsy Conference, op. cit.

Hippocrates, op. cit., pp. 320-1

J. Needham, op. cit., p. 53

Hippocrates, op. cit., p. 329

Hippocrates, op. cit., p. 345

B. Palmer (ed.) (Paternoster Press, 1986), Medicine and the Christian Mind, p. 19

G. M. Gould, W. L. Pyle (Julian Press, 1896) Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine p. 296

G. Sarton, (Williams and Wilkins, 1927) Introduction to the History of Science, vol I, pp. 423-424

A. A. Khairallah (American Press, Beirut, 1946) Outline of Arabic Contributions to Medicine, p. 24

H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, p. 414

C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia, p. 98

See for example Ibn Abi Usaybia, "Classes of Physicians" in 649 AH/1242AD; or al-Qifti, "History of the Philosophers", 624AH/1227AD.

M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, p. 6-7

E. G. Browne (Cambridge University Press, 1962) Arabian Medicine, p. 11

M. J. L. Young et al., (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Learning and Science in the `Abbasid Period, p. 342

A. A. Khairallah, op. cit., p. 22

C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 66

C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 68 (Click here for further information about this)

L. LeClerc, Histoire de la M‚decine Arabe (Burt Franklin, New York; originally published in Paris, 1876) vol I, p. 123

Commentary of al-Baidawi, The Lights of Revelation (Dar al Geel), p. 184 (see on sura 6:93 for an explanation of 23:14; click here for further information about this)

M. Meyerhof (1926) New light on Hunain Ibn Ishaq and his period, Isis, vol 8, pp. 685-724

H. Bailey, op. cit., p. 415

E. G. Browne, op. cit., p. 24-26

M. Meyerhof (1931) Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom", one of the oldest Arabic Compendiums of Medicine, Isis, vol 16, pp. 6-54

Ali b. Rabban-al-Tabari, ed. M. Z. Siddiqi (Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 1996, originally published in 1928) Firdausu'l-Hikmat, or Paradise of Wisdom, in vol 29, "Islamic Medicine"

A. W. Meyer, op. cit., p. 27

Ibn Qayyin (Damascus, 1971) Tuhfat: Tuhfat al mawdud bi ahkam al-mawlud, pp. 254-291

B. Musallam, op. cit., p. 56

This information was accurate as of November 1996. Obviously this "oversight" could be easily rectified by Muslim efforts in reaction to this paper. But at the time of writing (the first edition of this article), more than 14 years after the publication of the "edition with Islamic additions", this special edition of the textbook was not listed in these library catalogues.

K. L. Moore, op. cit.(1998), p. 15

J. Needham, op. cit., p. 82

B. Musallam, The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought, in, G. R. Dunstan (ed.) (University of Exeter Press, 1990)

 

I see some errors in his quotations of the Quran but his point still stands.

 

However whether or not the Qurans view of embryology is correct or not it doesn't change the fact that Mohammad contradicted the early church fathers on Jesus' divinity.

 

Here is what they say on the matter.

 

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

 

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

 

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

 

 

 

Aristides

"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

 

 

 

Tatian the Syrian

"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

 

 

 

Melito of Sardis

"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

 

 

 

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

 

 

 

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

 

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

 

 

 

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

 

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

 

 

 

Origen

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

 

 

 

Hippolytus

"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

 

 

 

Hippolytus of Rome

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

 

 

 

Novatian

"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

 

 

 

Cyprian of Carthage

"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

 

 

 

Gregory the Wonderworker

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

 

 

 

Arnobius

"‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).

 

 

 

Lactantius

"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

 

"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [but w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29).

 

 

 

Council of Nicaea I

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made" (Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

 

"But those who say, ‘There was a time when he [the Son] did not exist,’ and ‘Before he was born, he did not exist,’ and ‘Because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes" (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. (2:75)

 

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (2:79)

 

Actually, the Qur'an mentions that the Bible got corrupted. Furthermore, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, told us not to consult the people of the Book lest they tell us something false and we accept it, and lest they tell us something true and we reject it.

 

"After all, "we sent down the Torah to you..."", the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not receive the Torah. The story in the modern day Torah is of no importance. It goes on to show the envy of the Jews who changed it.

 

If you were to read the book I linked, you would see evidence of the Bible's corruption. However, here is some evidence for you:

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/735929-christian-and-jewish-scriptures/?p=1238433

 

You read Protestant translations. What do you think of the fact that the Old Testament translation you read is not in accordance with the New Testament you read?

 

More corruption: http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734248-jesus-resurrection-Islam/?p=1229980

 

Add to the list that the ending of Mark is missing in the earliest manuscripts. Also the famous "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing" is missing from the earliest manuscripts. So is the story of the adulteress.

 

What do you think about the fact that the NT misquotes the OT?

 

Answer: Matthew 2:13-15 makes the claim that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to Egypt until recalled by an angel. This is supposedly in fulfillment of a prophecy: "Out of Egypt did I call My son." The source of the so-called prophecy is Hosea 11:1. However, in the context of the verse as found in Hosea there is no prophecy, but simply a restating of israelite history.

 

 

What is more, the following verse in Hosea is a continuation of the prophet's statement. It says of those called out of Egypt that they sinned against God: "The more they [the prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed to Baalim, and offered to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). The application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would, on the basis of verse 2, describe him, as well as Mary and Joseph, as sinners. If one reads Matthew's so-called fulfillment of prophecy within the context of that "prophecy" then one must consider that Jesus was a sinner."

 

Add to this the fact that Matthew 27 supposedly quotes Jeremiah as a fulfilled prophecy when in fact the verse (similar one) is found in Zechariah.

 

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Here is a quote from my bible on Jerehmiah/Zechariah

 

Cf. Mt 26:15. Matthew’s attributing this text to Jeremiah is puzzling, for there is no such text in that book, and the thirty pieces of silver thrown by Judas “into the temple” (Mt 27:5) recall rather Zec 11:12–13. It is usually said that the attribution of the text to Jeremiah is due to Matthew’s combining the Zechariah text with texts from Jeremiah that speak of a potter (Jer 18:2–3), the buying of a field (Jer 32:6–9), or the breaking of a potter’s flask at Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom with the prediction that it will become a burial place (Jer 19:1–13).

Make of it what you will.

 

On Hosea, that verse is being used to show Jesus' life as a microcosm of the Nation of israel, sent the Holy Family to Egypt and later called them out.

 

However, while the israelites broke the Law (Hosea 11:2), Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17).

 

All of the other "contradictions" you bring up are simply differences in the way the original Hebrew was translated.

Another more important problem is in what you claim these differences prove. You say that because of these differences the bible is shown to be corrupt. However lets think about this. Say I was a scribe, corrupting scripture to suit my fancy. So I added or took away words to change translations to mean what I wished. Then I give these out for others to see. Wouldn't someone notice the differences I had added? Wouldn't I be called out for my attempt at twisting scripture? Your claims mean that the entire learned population of ancient israel or early Christendom was corrupted as well. After all, all it would take would be for one man to "spill the beans" so to speak, to the lay men and this whole operation would fail. That isn't even counting any lay men who listened in Church or Synagogue who may have noticed a difference in the readings. Your claims make no sense. Where are the books indicting the corrupters? Where are the outraged riots among the lower classes as their holy books are changed as men see fit?

 

Another major problem with the bible being corrupted is that Islam ceases to make sense as a result. As the Quran says:

 

Those who follow the Messenger, The unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned In their own (Scriptures)—In the Law and the Gospel— ... It is they who will prosper. (Qur’an 7:157)[2]

 

And remember, Jesus, The son of Mary, said: "O Children of israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming The Law (which came) Before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger To come after me, Whose name shall be Ahmad [i.e. Muhammad]." (Qur’an 61:6)

 

How can we be expected to find prophecies of Muhammad in the corrupt tome you claim us to have? After all if the bible is so easily corrupted how can we trust anything it says? If I were a lawyer would I be expected to use a text which I know to be heavily corrupted?

 

Finally the early Islamic scholars agreed that the bible was uncorrupted.

 

 

The Quran, the Holy Bible, and the Issue of Corruption –

 

A Christian Scholar Chimes In

 

Sam Shamoun

 

 

Introduction

 

Christian scholar Gordon Nickel has done the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities (and everyone else who loves truth for that matter) a great favor by producing a book which documents his extensive research into some of Islam’s earliest sources to see what they had to say about the reliability and authority of the Holy Bible. The book is titled, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an, and was published by Brill in 2011.

 

Nickel culls through the commentaries of Muqatil ibn Sulayman and al-Tabari, as well as the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, in order to examine how these authorities understood all of the verses from the Quran which address the issue of the authenticity and alleged tampering of the previous Scriptures.

 

Nickel’s research led him to the conclusion that these renowned authorities believed that the Scriptures that God had given to the Jews and Christians remained intact and that the Quran itself bears witness to their preservation and reliability.

 

In this article, we will provide some quotations from the book itself in order to help the readers see what some of Islam’s greatest and earliest authorities taught regarding the reliability of the Holy Bible. However, we do highly recommend that our readers consult Nickel’s work for themselves since there is a wealth of information which we cannot reproduce here.

 

 

 

The Citations

 

“… To distinguish the most common views in works from the Muslim tradition, scholars have employed the terms tahrif al-ma‘na, distortion of the meaning or interpretation of the words of scripture, and tahrif al-nass, falsification of the text itself. MANY Muslim writers throughout the history of Islamic scholarship have favored the FORMER conception. Other writers have championed the latter view, some of them to great effect.

 

“As a representative of the view of tahrif al-ma‘na, a number of scholars have highlighted the approach of al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim. Thought a work of polemic, and written relatively early (9th C.), his ‘Refutation of the Christians’ envisioned corruption to the interpretation of the Bible, BUT NOT TO THE TEXT ITSELF. Ibn Qutayba also viewed the Torah as a revealed scripture and an historical source.72 The historian Ibn Khaldun, in a famous statement near the beginning of his Muqaddimah, wrote that ‘thorough scholars’ CANNOT accept the statement that Jesus altered the Torah, ‘since custom prevents people who have a (revealed) religion from dealing with their divine scriptures in such a manner.’73 If tampering had taken place in relation to the text of the Torah, IT IS CONFINED TO ITS INTERPRETATION.74 Another relatively late medieval writer who favored ‘alteration of the sense’ over corruption of text was Burhan al-Din al-Biqa‘i (d. 884/1480) in his al-Aqwal al-qawima fi hukm al-naql min al-kutub al-qadima.75 Muslim writers who took the approach of tahrif al-ma‘na, including Ibn Qutayba and al-Biqa‘i, were more likely to search the Jewish and Christian scriptures for passages which could be read as prophecies of the mission of Muhammad.

 

“For the view of tahrif al-nass, many scholars have identified the 11th-century Spanish polemicist Ibn Hazm as the first to systematize the doctrine of textual falsification and to offer actual citations from the Bible in support of his accusations…

 

“One Muslim scholar who wrote in support of the corruption of the text of the Torah prior to Ibn Hazm was al-Maqdisi.80 Many subsequent Muslim writers echoed Ibn Hazm’s arguments, such as al-Qarafi, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.81 Thus the two tampering accusations appeared to continue on their parallel tracks for more than half a millennium.82 Then in the mid-19th century, the Muslim accusation of tahrif al-nass took a kind of quantum leap through the controversy between Indian Muslim scholars and European Christian missionaries in India of the British Raj.

 

“Mawlana Rahmat Allah Kayranawi (‘al-Hindi,’ 1818-91) is credited with moving the textual corruption accusation forward through a famous public debate and a widely-published book. Interestingly, the most influential Indian theologian of the modern period, Shah Wali Allah (1703-62), had previously declared that he did not believe in the corruption of the text of the Torah. He had explained in his Al-Fawz al-kabir fi usul al-tafsir that ‘tampering with meaning means corrupt interpretation (ta’wil), misconstruing a verse arbitrarily, and deviation (inhiraf) from the straight path. Likewise, a contemporary of Rahmat Allah, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98), conceived of tampering as referring essentially to interpretation rather than actual verbal corruption of the text. But neither of these moderate views had the popular appeal of the case Rahmat Allah made for textual corruption in a public debate which took place in Agra in 1854–in the politically-charged atmosphere just prior to the Mutiny.” (Chapter Two. The Doctrine Of Corruption As A Polemical Theme, pp. 22-25; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

81 Lazarus-Yafeh, “Tahrif,” 112. However, Goldziher quotes from a manuscript of al-Jawziyya the approach to a popular aspect of the tampering accusation taken by this 14th-century student of Ibn Taymiyya: “it is an entirely false idea when it is asserted that Jews and Christians have agreed together to expunge [the name of Muhammad] out of their scriptures in all the ends of the world where they live. No one among the learned Muslims asserts this, NEITHER HAS GOD SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS IN THE QUR’AN, NOR HAS ANY OF THE COMPANIONS, Imams, or Qur’an scholars expressed himself IN THIS SENSE.” “Über muhammedanische Polemik”, 373.

 

82 Ibn Taymiyya wrote in the 14th century that the Islamic position towards the textual corruption WAS STILL DIVERSE AND AMBIGUOUS: “If…they [Christians] mean that the Qur’an confirms the textual veracity (alfaz) of the scriptural books which they now possess–that is, the Torah and the Gospels–this is something which some Muslims WILL GRANT THEM and which many Muslims will dispute. HOWEVER, MOST MUSLIMS WILL GRANT THEM MOST OF THAT.” Cited by Martin Accad in “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse,” 73. (P. 24; capital emphasis ours)

 

“Three particular earlier scriptures are mentioned by name in the Qur’an: the Tawrat, the Injil, and the Zabur. The names Tawrat and Injil first appear at the beginning of the third Sura, together at Q 3:3. The name Zabur first appears at Q 4:163.” (Chapter Three. Qur’anic Reference To The Earlier Scriptures, p. 39)

 

“Of the three Zabur references, we find in two of the verses the concept that God gave the Zabur to David.29 At Q 21:105 the third occurrence of Zabur is set in the form of a saying of God, that he wrote in that book, ‘The earth shall be the inheritance of my righteous servants.’30” (Pp. 41-42)

 

29 Q 4:163, 17:55. Tabari writes on zabur at 4:163: “It is the name of the book that was revealed to David, just as he named the book that was revealed to Moses as the Tawrat and that which was revealed to Jesus as the Injil and that which was revealed to Muhammad as the furqan, because that is the name by which what was revealed to David was known. The Arabs say zabur Dawud, and because of that the rest of the peoples know this book.” Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol. IX, 402. Muqatil comments on zabur at Q 4:163: “It contains neither statute nor command, neither obligation nor permitted nor forbidden, [but has] 150 suras.” (P. 41; bold emphasis ours)

 

“Another indication of the approach to the earlier scriptures in the Qur’an comes from the language of confirmation. A series of verses seems to claim that what God is now revealing to the addressees of the Qur’an has essential links to revelations of the past.

 

“The term musaddiq, from saddaqa, means CONFIRMING, ATTESTING, OR PRONOUNCING TO BE TRUE,56 as in its first Qur’anic appearance, ‘And believe in that I have sent down, confirming (musaddiqan) that which is with you, and be not of the first to disbelieve in it’ (Q 2:41). This active participle occurs some 18 times in the Qur’an. Of that total, 14 occurrences are distributed throughout Suras 2-6. Beyond Sura 6 there are four occurrences, two of them in Sura 46.57 In addition to this, the term tasdiq,58 verbal noun of saddaqa, appears in Q 10:37 and 12:111.

 

“The object of the participle and verbal noun is generally one of a number of indistinct phrases which could be understood to refer to earlier scriptures. The most frequent object is ma bayna yadayhi59 and similar phrases at Q 2:97; 3:3, 50; 5:48; 6:92; 35:31; 46:30; and 61:6. A second frequent object is ‘what is with them’60 and similar phrases at Q 2:41, 89, 91, 101; 3:81; and 4:47. The subject of confirmation in those verses is generally ‘what I have sent down’ (Q 2:41) and similar phrases. ‘A book (kitab)’ or ‘the book’ is frequently specified; at Q 2:89 ‘a book from God’; and in one of the tasdiq verses, ‘this qur’an’ (Q 10:27). Other subjects include ‘messenger’ (Q 3:81) and ‘a messenger from God’ (Q 2:101).

 

“The Torah appears as the object of confirmation at Q 3:50, 5:46, and 61:6. In those verses, the subjects are ‘Isa and the scripture sent down upon him, the Injil. At Q 46:12, the Torah is updated by ‘hadha kitab’: ‘Before it was the book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and this is a book confirming, in Arabic tongue, to warn evildoers, and good tidings to the good-doers.’61 At Q 3:39, angels say to Zakariyya, ‘God gives you glad tidings of Yahya, confirming a word (kalima) from God.’

 

“In two of the verses there appear parallel phrases which shed light on the meaning of confirmation. The first is at Q 5:48: ‘We have sent to you the book in truth, confirming (musaddiq) what is before it from the book, and guarding it in safety (muhaymin).’ The second is at Q 10:37: ‘it is a confirmation (tasdiq) of what is before it, and a distinguishing (tafsil) of the book, wherein is no doubt.’

 

“The impression given by these verses containing musaddiq or tasdiq is that the revelation conceived of as being sent down by God in the present is thought to align with what God has sent down in the past.62 There seems to be a claim of correspondence. These verses VOUCH FOR THE TRUTH OF EARLIER REVELATIONS, WHICH IS THE SENSE OF SADDAQA. At the same time these verses bring the authority of the past revelations to bear on the present revelation. This helps the reader understand the context for the verses of tampering in the Qur’an, and also indicates one expression which may have been in the minds of the exegetes when they set about to explain the meaning of the verses of tampering.” (Pp. 47-48; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

56 Wansbrough renders musaddiq as “verification of earlier prophets and scriptures,” Quranic Studies, 65.

 

57 At Q 6:92, 35:31, 46:12 & 30, and 61:6.

 

58 Confirmation, attestation; belief; assent, agreement, approval.

 

59 Frequently translated “that which was before it,” but which means literally “what is between his two hands.” Madigan renders it “… WHAT IS ALREADY PRESENT.” The Qur’an’s Self-Image, 137. (P. 47; capital emphasis ours)

 

“The Qur’an provides qualitative descriptions of the earlier scriptures which appear to be uniformly respectful. A striking example is at Q 6:154: ‘Then we gave to Moses the book, complete for him who does good, and distinguishing everything, and as a guidance (hudan) and a mercy (rahma).’ These and other epithets repeat throughout the Qur’an. The Torah is characterized as containing ‘guidance and light (nur).’ The Gospel is also called ‘a guidance and an admonition (maw‘iza) to the godfearing.’ The Torah is said to contain ‘the judgment (hukm) of God.’ The book given to Moses is described as a guidance to the Children of israel. God also gave ‘the book of Moses’ for a standard (imam) and a mercy. The tablets which God wrote for Moses contain ‘an admonition and a distinguishing (tafsil) of everything. The book given to Moses and Aaron is described as the ‘manifesting’ (mustabin) book.

 

“In other contexts, the Qur’anic approach to the earlier scriptures can be seen in the actions which are associated with them. At Q 3:93, for example, is an appeal to opponents in the midst of a polemical situation to ‘Bring the Torah now, and recite it, if you are truthful.’ A similar understanding is given at Q 10:94: ‘If you are in doubt regarding what we have sent down to you, ask those who recite the book before you.’ These verses seem to indicate that the Torah was readily available, and could be produced to resolve disputes or answer questions. They also suggest a measure of authority to the contents of the Torah. A third situation of this type is in view at Q 5:43, where the Torah is said to be with (‘inda) the Jews, and to contain God’s decision. At Q 5:44, the prophets and religious leaders of the Jews are said to have judged the Jews according to the Torah, and these leaders were entrusted with the protection of ‘the book of God.’ Similarly, the ‘people of the Gospel’ are urged to make their judgments according to the contents of the Gospel. All of the People of the Book are also challenged to ‘stand fast’ or act according to the Torah and Gospel.

 

“These Qur’anic descriptions of the earlier scriptures appear to be UNIFORMLY POSITIVE AND RESPECTFUL. The MOST NATURAL IMPRESSION to be taken would be that they represent a conception of sacred texts WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AND INTACT. There does not seem to be any hint, in any of the verses mentioned above, that the recitations which are conceived of being presently ‘sent down’ contradict the contents of the earlier scriptures. There is NO EVIDENT SUGGESTION in these verses that ANY of the scriptures exist in an altered state. The associations of the terms kalam and kalim (‘word/words’) with the verb harrafa will be thoroughly examined below. Otherwise, the references to earlier scriptures in the Qur’an WOULD NOT seem to trigger thoughts of their corruption.

 

“These descriptions of the earlier scriptures in turn provide a context for the exegetical development of the motif of tampering. The exegete who wants to write about the earlier scriptures will be constrained to keep in mind what the Qur’an itself says about them. If he chooses to go against the characterizations found in the Muslim scripture, he risks his reader’s accusation of contradicting the word of God.” (Pp. 48-50; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“… When the term musaddiq first appears at Q 2:41, Tabari glosses the scriptural phrase ‘in confirmation of what is with you’ as the qur’an CONFIRMS WHAT IS WITH THE JEWS OF BANU ISRA’IL OF THE TORAH.119 … In his exegesis of the phrase ‘what was with you,’ Tabari is straightforward in saying that the Torah and the Gospel ARE WITH THE JEWS, and he cites a tradition which claims, ‘they find Muhammad… written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel.121

 

“Tabari provides further explanation of musaddiq at several other occurrences of the term in Suras 2-6. At Q 4:47 he glosses ‘confirming’ as muhaqqaq,122 WITH THE SENSE OF VERIFYING OR SUBSTANTIATING. He offers an interesting discussion of the scriptural term, with which musaddiq is set in parallel at Q 5:48, muhaymin.123 Tabari and a large number of traditions provide a variety of glosses for muhaymin (‘guarding it in safety’): PROVIDING EVIDENCE (shahid) THAT IT IS TRUE AND FROM GOD, ASSURING (amin) it, guarding (hafiz) it, supervising (raqaba) it, and entrusted (mu’taman) with it. The Qur’an does not contradict the Torah which God sent down on Moses, which is guidance and light.124 ALL OF THESE EXPRESSIONS INDICATE A CONCEPT OF TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE EARLIER SCRIPTURES.

 

“An anecdote which Tabari transmits in his explanation of musaddiq at Q 2:97 gives a good idea of the spirit of much of the material on the earlier scriptures in his commentary. In a tradition attributed to al-Sha‘bi, ‘Umar tells about being present with the Jews on the day of their study (midras) and being amazed ‘at how the Torah confirmed the truth (tasdiq) of the furqan, and how the furqan confirmed the truth of the Torah.’125 ‘Umar presses the Jews to say whether they know (‘alima) that Muhammad is the messenger of God. One of their learned and important men answers–though once more only because he has been adjured by God!–that they do indeed know that Muhammad is the messenger of God. ‘Umar then expresses amazement a second time: if they know that he is the messenger of God, why do they not follow (tab‘ia) him and attest (saddaqa) him?126

 

“The claim that Muhammad is confirming God’s earlier revelation also comes out strongly in the exclamation of triumph which the prophet of Islam makes at the end of the ‘stoning verse’ narratives. This exclamation is worded variously in the different accounts: In Muqatil’s tafsir Muhammad says, ‘I am the first to revive one of the sunnas of God.’127 Tabari’s commentary offers two expressions, the first addressed to God: ‘O God, I am the first who revived your command’ (al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib); and the second a claim of self-identity: ‘I IMPOSE (qada) WHAT IS IN THE TORAH’ (Abu Hurayra)…” (Chapter Six. Method And Meaning In Interpretation Of The Qur’an, pp. 188-189; capital emphasis ours)

 

119 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. I, 560.

 

120 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. I, 560-561.

 

121 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. I, 561 (trad. 816).

 

122 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. VIII, 440.

 

123 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. X, 377-382. Muhaymin, ‘guarding it in safety,’ is one of the terms which the Qur’an uses for the relationship of the recitation to the Torah.

 

124 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. XI, 530 (at Q. 6:92).

 

125 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. II, 381 (trad. 1608).

 

126 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. II, 381.

 

127 Ibn Ishaq’s version of the exclamation begins the same way as Muqatil’s but then includes a reference to the kitab of God: “I am the first to revive the order of God and his book and to practise it.” Sirat al-Nabi, Vol. II, 406. (Ibid)

 

“… The exegete was also familiar with many traditions which favoured Ishmael as the intended victim. But Tabari himself preferred to recognize Isaac as the victim–because this was the ‘established narrative’ about Isaac and Jerusalem.

 

“In Tabari’s mind, wrote Calder, popular narrative emerged historically prior to theological dogma, and therefore exerted greater authority for the exegete. In the two exegetical situations highlighted by Calder, Tabari knew–and transmitted–a range of opinion which was diverse to the point of contradiction. Over against 17 statements which favored identification of the sacrifice victim as Isaac, Tabari offered 24 statements from ‘authorities of similar weight and standing’ in favor of Ishmael. He had to defend his position against three major rational objections which had arisen to the identification of Isaac. With time, of course, Muslim theological dogma favored the identification of Ishmael, and this view found vigorous exegetical expression in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir. But even so, Tabari allowed narrative to determine his exegetical decision. ” (Chapter Seven. Influence Of Narrative Framework On Exegesis, pp. 211-212)

 

“The need in the narrative is to make a case for the truth of the claims of the prophet of Islam, and to show the Jews as brazenly refusing to acknowledge this truth. In discussing the former scriptures, the exegetes would want to show that the attestation of the prophetic status of Muhammad can be found in the former scriptures. They will also want to AMPLIFY the Qur’anic claim that the recitations which the Arabic messenger is making confirm what the People of the Book have with them. This would be consistent with Muhammad’s claim in the commentaries that he is reviving the commandments of God. In treating the obstinacy of the Jews, the exegetes would want to show that the Jews were fully culpable because everything they needed to know in order to make an appropriate response to Muhammad’s claims was right in front of them.

 

“This is indeed largely what happens in the commentaries. The dominant actions of tampering which the exegetes narrate are actions WHICH DEPEND for their narrative dynamic ON THE PRESENCE OF AN INTACT TORAH IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS OF MUHAMMAD’S TIME.” (Ibid, pp. 212-213; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“On Q 2:75 Ibn Ishaq relates basically the same story which Muqatil and Tabari offer in their explanation of the verse. The Jewish leaders hear the commands and prohibitions from God and understand them. But when they return with Moses to the people, a group of their leaders ‘changed (harrafa) the commandments they had been given’ by contradicting Moses and claiming that God had commanded something different. Ibn Ishaq here glosses ‘the word of God’ as ‘the Torah.’ However, the narrative he offers does not concern a text and its falsification, but rather only an audition of the voice of God and the verbal alteration of God’s commandments when reporting them to the people…

 

“Ibn Ishaq does not link a narrative with Q 5:13, though he provides details of the ‘treachery’ of the Jews against Muhammad in relation to Q 5:11. However, he provides a long narrative passage as the occasion of revelation of Q 5:41. The story is substantially the same as the verse of stoning story found in Muqatil, ‘Abd al-Razzaq and Tabari. ‘Abd Allah ibn Suriya, introduced as ‘the most learned man living in the Torah,’ affirms that the Torah prescribes stoning for adulterers. He says that the Jews know that Muhammad is a prophet sent by God, but don’t want to acknowledge the truth because of envy. Here Ibn Ishaq also attaches the story of a rabbi concealing a verse of stoning with his hand. The prophet of Islam calls for a Torah to be brought out. When ‘And Allah ibn Salam removes the rabbi’s hand from the page, the ‘verse of stoning’ is revealed. Muhammad says, ‘Woe to you Jews! What has induced you to abandon (taraka) the judgment of God WHICH YOU HOLD IN YOUR HANDS (bi-aydikum)?’ The Jews explain how they agreed to ‘adjust’ (aslaha) the punishment to flogging. The prophet of Islam then proclaims, ‘I am the first to revive the command (amr) of God and his book and its practice.’ ALL of the parts of Ibn Ishaq’s narrative ENVISION AN INTACT TORAH WHICH CAN BE PRODUCED AND READ ALOUD by the Jewish Torah experts. Muhammad’s proclamation that he revives God’s book appears to come out of a concept THAT THE BOOK IS AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE–whether the book’s custodians are trustworthy or not.” (Pp. 216-217; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“At several other points in his narratives about the response of the Jews of Madina to Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq appears to be working from a concept of AN INTACT AND SOUND TORAH. For example, he glosses Q 2:42, ‘do not conceal the knowledge which you have about my apostle and what he has brought when you will find it with you in what you know of the books which are in your hands.’ The three Jewish tribes of Madina shed each other’s blood, ‘WHILE THE TORAH WAS IN THEIR HANDS by which they knew what was allowed and what was forbidden.’ In relation to Q 2:89-90, God’s anger against the Jews is at ‘what they have disregarded of the Torah which they had’ by disbelieving in the prophet of Islam. The prophet wrote to the Jews of Khaybar that God had revealed the words of Q 48:29, ‘and you will find it in your scripture.’ Here Ibn Ishaq includes a rather remarkable challenge in Muhammad’s letter: ‘Do you find in what he has sent down to you that you should believe in Muhammad? If you do not find that in your scripture then there is no compulsion (kurh) upon you.’ In another story, the prophet of Islam enters a Jewish school and calls the Jews to God. In the ensuing exchange they disagree about the identity of Abraham, so Muhammad says to the Jews, ‘Then let the Torah judge between us.’ Ibn Ishaq claims that this was the occasion of revelation of Q 3:23: ‘Hast thou not regarded those who were given a portion of the book, BEING CALLED TO THE BOOK OF GOD, that it might decide between them, and then a party of them turned away, swerving aside?’ Abu Bakr invites a learned rabbi named Finhas to Islam because the Jew ‘knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel.’ Near the end of the Sira section on the Jews, a group of Jews put the question to Muhammad directly: ‘Is it true, Muhammad, that what you have brought is the truth from God?’ The prophet responds, ‘You know quite well that it is from God; you will find it written in the Torah which you have…. You know well that it is from God and that I am the apostle of God. You will find it written in the Torah you have.’ The claim in all of these examples is that the Torah which is in the possession of the Jews of Madina during the rule of Muhammad there will confirm his status as a prophet of God and the divine origin of the recitations which he is giving.

 

“Ibn Ishaq also links narrative with several of the katama verses, and the theme of concealing seems to be an important part of his characterization of the Jews. Besides Q 2:42, mentioned earlier, he treats Q 2:159, 3:71, 3:187, and 4:37. As sabab al-nuzul for Q 2:159, he tells a simple story about Arabs asking the Jewish rabbis about a matter contained in the Torah. The rabbis respond by concealing it from them and refusing (aba) to tell them anything about it. Ibn Ishaq’s asbab for the other three katama verses similarly appeal to the Jews to be honest about what they find in the Torah. The most logical conclusion from these stories is that the Torah which the Jews are encouraged to consult is understood by Ibn Ishaq to be the book which they have in their hands.

 

“A striking fact about the narratives Ibn Ishaq offers about the Ahl al-Kitab in the Sira is the absence of any accusation of the falsification of the previous scriptures…” (Pp. 217-219; bold emphasis ours)

 

“The Sira treats a remarkable number of the same verses of tampering which were identified through scholarly indications and through the semantic field of tampering. Ibn Ishaq provides a story of God’s actions in history through the Arabian prophet, into which he inserts Qur’anic verses of interaction and controversy with the People of the Book. From the other direction Muqatil, and to a certain extent Tabari, provide interpretation for the vague and contextless verses of the Qur’an by constructing above them a looming narrative framework. In both cases, the narrative favors the scenario of a variety of tampering actions revolving around AN INTACT TORAH.

 

“In setting out to write salvation history for the Muslim community, Ibn Ishaq was looking to portray continuity with the prophets of the Jewish and Christian communities and to demonstrate attestation from the scriptures of those communities. Continuity and attestation are elements of a narrative framework which works against the concept of a corrupted scripture in the hands of the Jews of Muhammad’s Madina. In fact, Ibn Ishaq claims repeatedly that the book in the hands of the Jews will attest to the prophet of Islam. The narrative framework of the Sira exclude not only traditions of textual falsification, but also the Qur’anic verses which seem to trigger the accusation in Muqaril’s and Tabari’s commentaries… The narrative framework influences the two exegetes to interpret the tampering verses mainly in the direction of actions of tampering WHICH ASSUME AN INTACT TORAH IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS.

 

“The influence of the narrative structure suggests a reason for why, though Muqatil and Tabari cite a number of falsification traditions, these traditions remain isolated in the commentaries; and why the treatment of falsification accusation by Tabari and his forebears has been characterized by scholars as RELUCTANT,48 CAUTIOUS,49 GUARDED,50 CAREFUL,51 and GENTLE.52”

 

48 Burton, “The Corruption of the Scriptures,” 105.

 

49 Saeed, “The Charge of Distortion,” 419.

 

50 Khoury, Polemique byzantine contre l’Islam, 210.

 

51 Hermann Stieglecker, “Die muhammedanische Pentateuchkritik zu Beginn des 2. Jahrtausends,” Theologische-praktische Quartalschrift 88 (1935), 75.

 

52 Fritsch, Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter, p. 57. (Pp. 220-221; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“This study set out to demonstrate the development of the theme of ‘tampering with the earlier scriptures’ by exegetes in the formative period of Qur’anic commentary. This goal has been achieved by a close examination and analysis of passages from the commentaries of Muqatil and Tabari. The passages chosen for special focus were exegetical treatments of the verses in the Qur’an which have traditionally been linked with the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of earlier scriptures. A set of 25 ‘tampering verses’ were found at the intersection of the lists offered in scholarly studies of Muslim polemic and the Qur’an’s semantic field of tampering. The description and analysis of the exegesis of these verses in the two commentaries culminated in summary statements of how the exegetes understood the Qur’anic verbs in the semantic field of tampering as well as several other scriptural expressions associated with the Muslim accusation of falsification.

 

“Examination of the commentary passages has shown that the exegetes in the formative period DID NOT in the first instance understand the Qur’anic verses of tampering TO MEAN THE TEXTUAL CORRUPTION OF THE EARLIER SCRIPTURES. Rather, they interpreted the verses to mean a range of actions of tampering done mainly by Jews, mainly contemporary with the prophet of Islam, and mainly related to the Torah. The Qur’anic verses themselves are not at all clear as to actor and action, locus and object of tampering. The exegetes aim to identify the ‘vague and ambiguous’ references of the text of scripture… The exegetes transmit traditions about the Jewish alteration of the Torah. These traditions seem to be linked in the commentaries with Q 2:79, and also attach to exegetical treatment of 3:78 and 5:13. The alteration traditions, however, are OVERSHADOWED in the commentaries by more dominant tampering traditions WHICH ASSUME THE EXISTENCE OF AUTHENTIC SCRIPTURES IN THE HANDS OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.” (Chapter Eight. Conclusion: Religious Claims and Human Response, pp. 223-224; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“The wording of the Qur’an on the earlier scriptures makes it difficult–with consistency–for the exegetes to speak of those scriptures as if they existed in a corrupted state. The material on the earlier scriptures in the Qur’an is uniformly positive and respectful. Most of this material appears in Suras 2-7. The earlier scriptures are portrayed there as touchstones of authority and attestation. The explicit claim repeated throughout these suras is that the revelation sent down to the messenger confirms the revelation sent down before it and now in existence ‘with’ the People of the Book. In the very same suras, and often in near contexts, occur verbs and expressions of tampering which create a mood of anxiety about how the People of the Book are handling the revelation which God granted to them. A survey of all of these materials showed that favorable descriptions of the earlier scriptures alternate with verbs from the semantic field of tampering and a number of idiomatic expressions associated with tampering.

 

“Exegesis of verses which contain these verbs and expressions shows a preoccupation with actions of deception such as concealing words of the earlier scriptures which describe the person and arrival of the prophet of Islam… Stories of deception are based on an understanding that the tampering is related to AN INTACT text of the earlier scriptures…” (Pp. 224-225; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“A case for narrative influence was made with the assistance of scholarly insights into the exegetical method of Muqatil and the importance of narrative for Tabari. The intention to demonstrate the authority of Muhammad, it was argued, would determine the exegetical approach to the tampering materials in several respects. First of all, the attestation to the messenger and his message would be sought in the earlier scriptures. Secondly, the rulings of the messenger would be seen to be in line with the rulings of the earlier scriptures. Thirdly, the people who possess the earlier scriptures would be made culpable by their disregard of the truth in their hands. Fourthly, those Jews who respond appropriately to the prophet of Islam would be portrayed as dealing honestly with the earlier scriptures as they knew them. This case for narrative influence on the exegesis of the tampering verses was tested on another early work, the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, in chapter seven. In the Sira, the narrative is the central concern, and verses from the Qur’an are brought in to serve the story. The treatment of tampering verses in the Sirah showed a clear concern for all four aspects of the above approach. It was observed that not only does the Sira lack an accusation of the falsification of the earlier scriptures, but that it does not even make use of the verses which are associated with the accusation in the commentaries of Muqatil and Tabari.” (P. 226; bold emphasis ours)

 

“In summary, Muqatil and Tabari DID NOT in the first instance UNDERSTAND from the words of the Qur’an that Jews and Christians HAD FALSIFIED THEIR SCRIPTURES…” (P. 228; capital emphasis ours)

 

“… Initially, there was no way for Islam to establish claims of authority other than in terms of the older religious traditions. If Islam wanted to establish authority in these terms, however, it would need to refer to the revelations of the past and would tend to speak of these revelations in a favorable way. An accusation of the wholesale corruption of the earlier scriptures prior to the emergence of Islam would eliminate the possibility of proof of the essential attestation which those scriptures provide.” (P. 229)

 

“… It was noted in chapter seven that Tabari, after considering many conflicting traditions about the identity of the son of Abraham’s intended sacrifice, ASSERTED THAT THE SON WAS ISAAC. Muqatil before him had identified the son AS ISAAC WITHOUT INDICATING AWARENESS OF ANY OTHER OPTION. Both exegetes were free to consider the reliability of the stories of the Jews, or reports about the narrative in the Torah, that Isaac was the son involved…” (Pp. 229-230; capital emphasis ours)

 

“… Whatever Ibn Ishaq may have known in the second Islamic century about the use of standard polemical topoi in other religious communities, he did not in fact make accusation of the falsification of earlier scriptures in the Sira…” (P. 231; bold emphasis ours)

 

I don't know all of these Islamic scholars so if this article contains errors let me know.

 

Because of this I don't believe Islam's claim that the bible is corrupted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. (2:75)

 

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (2:79)

 

Actually, the Qur'an mentions that the Bible got corrupted. Furthermore, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, told us not to consult the people of the Book lest they tell us something false and we accept it, and lest they tell us something true and we reject it.

 

"After all, "we sent down the Torah to you..."", the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not receive the Torah. The story in the modern day Torah is of no importance. It goes on to show the envy of the Jews who changed it.

 

If you were to read the book I linked, you would see evidence of the Bible's corruption. However, here is some evidence for you:

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/735929-christian-and-jewish-scriptures/?p=1238433

 

You read Protestant translations. What do you think of the fact that the Old Testament translation you read is not in accordance with the New Testament you read?

 

More corruption: http://www.gawaher.com/topic/734248-jesus-resurrection-Islam/?p=1229980

 

Add to the list that the ending of Mark is missing in the earliest manuscripts. Also the famous "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing" is missing from the earliest manuscripts. So is the story of the adulteress.

 

What do you think about the fact that the NT misquotes the OT?

 

Answer: Matthew 2:13-15 makes the claim that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to Egypt until recalled by an angel. This is supposedly in fulfillment of a prophecy: "Out of Egypt did I call My son." The source of the so-called prophecy is Hosea 11:1. However, in the context of the verse as found in Hosea there is no prophecy, but simply a restating of israelite history.

 

 

What is more, the following verse in Hosea is a continuation of the prophet's statement. It says of those called out of Egypt that they sinned against God: "The more they [the prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed to Baalim, and offered to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). The application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would, on the basis of verse 2, describe him, as well as Mary and Joseph, as sinners. If one reads Matthew's so-called fulfillment of prophecy within the context of that "prophecy" then one must consider that Jesus was a sinner."

 

Add to this the fact that Matthew 27 supposedly quotes Jeremiah as a fulfilled prophecy when in fact the verse (similar one) is found in Zechariah.

 

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Here is a quote from my bible on Jerehmiah/Zechariah

 

Cf. Mt 26:15. Matthew’s attributing this text to Jeremiah is puzzling, for there is no such text in that book, and the thirty pieces of silver thrown by Judas “into the temple” (Mt 27:5) recall rather Zec 11:12–13. It is usually said that the attribution of the text to Jeremiah is due to Matthew’s combining the Zechariah text with texts from Jeremiah that speak of a potter (Jer 18:2–3), the buying of a field (Jer 32:6–9), or the breaking of a potter’s flask at Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom with the prediction that it will become a burial place (Jer 19:1–13).

Make of it what you will.

 

On Hosea, that verse is being used to show Jesus' life as a microcosm of the Nation of israel, sent the Holy Family to Egypt and later called them out.

 

However, while the israelites broke the Law (Hosea 11:2), Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17).

 

All of the other "contradictions" you bring up are simply differences in the way the original Hebrew was translated.

Another more important problem is in what you claim these differences prove. You say that because of these differences the bible is shown to be corrupt. However lets think about this. Say I was a scribe, corrupting scripture to suit my fancy. So I added or took away words to change translations to mean what I wished. Then I give these out for others to see. Wouldn't someone notice the differences I had added? Wouldn't I be called out for my attempt at twisting scripture? Your claims mean that the entire learned population of ancient israel or early Christendom was corrupted as well. After all, all it would take would be for one man to "spill the beans" so to speak, to the lay men and this whole operation would fail. That isn't even counting any lay men who listened in Church or Synagogue who may have noticed a difference in the readings. Your claims make no sense. Where are the books indicting the corrupters? Where are the outraged riots among the lower classes as their holy books are changed as men see fit?

 

Another major problem with the bible being corrupted is that Islam ceases to make sense as a result. As the Quran says:

 

Those who follow the Messenger, The unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned In their own (Scriptures)—In the Law and the Gospel— ... It is they who will prosper. (Qur’an 7:157)[2]

 

And remember, Jesus, The son of Mary, said: "O Children of israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming The Law (which came) Before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger To come after me, Whose name shall be Ahmad [i.e. Muhammad]." (Qur’an 61:6)

 

How can we be expected to find prophecies of Muhammad in the corrupt tome you claim us to have? After all if the bible is so easily corrupted how can we trust anything it says? If I were a lawyer would I be expected to use a text which I know to be heavily corrupted?

 

Finally the early Islamic scholars agreed that the bible was uncorrupted.

 

 

The Quran, the Holy Bible, and the Issue of Corruption –

 

A Christian Scholar Chimes In

 

Sam Shamoun

 

 

Introduction

 

Christian scholar Gordon Nickel has done the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities (and everyone else who loves truth for that matter) a great favor by producing a book which documents his extensive research into some of Islam’s earliest sources to see what they had to say about the reliability and authority of the Holy Bible. The book is titled, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an, and was published by Brill in 2011.

 

Nickel culls through the commentaries of Muqatil ibn Sulayman and al-Tabari, as well as the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, in order to examine how these authorities understood all of the verses from the Quran which address the issue of the authenticity and alleged tampering of the previous Scriptures.

 

Nickel’s research led him to the conclusion that these renowned authorities believed that the Scriptures that God had given to the Jews and Christians remained intact and that the Quran itself bears witness to their preservation and reliability.

 

In this article, we will provide some quotations from the book itself in order to help the readers see what some of Islam’s greatest and earliest authorities taught regarding the reliability of the Holy Bible. However, we do highly recommend that our readers consult Nickel’s work for themselves since there is a wealth of information which we cannot reproduce here.

 

 

 

The Citations

 

“… To distinguish the most common views in works from the Muslim tradition, scholars have employed the terms tahrif al-ma‘na, distortion of the meaning or interpretation of the words of scripture, and tahrif al-nass, falsification of the text itself. MANY Muslim writers throughout the history of Islamic scholarship have favored the FORMER conception. Other writers have championed the latter view, some of them to great effect.

 

“As a representative of the view of tahrif al-ma‘na, a number of scholars have highlighted the approach of al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim. Thought a work of polemic, and written relatively early (9th C.), his ‘Refutation of the Christians’ envisioned corruption to the interpretation of the Bible, BUT NOT TO THE TEXT ITSELF. Ibn Qutayba also viewed the Torah as a revealed scripture and an historical source.72 The historian Ibn Khaldun, in a famous statement near the beginning of his Muqaddimah, wrote that ‘thorough scholars’ CANNOT accept the statement that Jesus altered the Torah, ‘since custom prevents people who have a (revealed) religion from dealing with their divine scriptures in such a manner.’73 If tampering had taken place in relation to the text of the Torah, IT IS CONFINED TO ITS INTERPRETATION.74 Another relatively late medieval writer who favored ‘alteration of the sense’ over corruption of text was Burhan al-Din al-Biqa‘i (d. 884/1480) in his al-Aqwal al-qawima fi hukm al-naql min al-kutub al-qadima.75 Muslim writers who took the approach of tahrif al-ma‘na, including Ibn Qutayba and al-Biqa‘i, were more likely to search the Jewish and Christian scriptures for passages which could be read as prophecies of the mission of Muhammad.

 

“For the view of tahrif al-nass, many scholars have identified the 11th-century Spanish polemicist Ibn Hazm as the first to systematize the doctrine of textual falsification and to offer actual citations from the Bible in support of his accusations…

 

“One Muslim scholar who wrote in support of the corruption of the text of the Torah prior to Ibn Hazm was al-Maqdisi.80 Many subsequent Muslim writers echoed Ibn Hazm’s arguments, such as al-Qarafi, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.81 Thus the two tampering accusations appeared to continue on their parallel tracks for more than half a millennium.82 Then in the mid-19th century, the Muslim accusation of tahrif al-nass took a kind of quantum leap through the controversy between Indian Muslim scholars and European Christian missionaries in India of the British Raj.

 

“Mawlana Rahmat Allah Kayranawi (‘al-Hindi,’ 1818-91) is credited with moving the textual corruption accusation forward through a famous public debate and a widely-published book. Interestingly, the most influential Indian theologian of the modern period, Shah Wali Allah (1703-62), had previously declared that he did not believe in the corruption of the text of the Torah. He had explained in his Al-Fawz al-kabir fi usul al-tafsir that ‘tampering with meaning means corrupt interpretation (ta’wil), misconstruing a verse arbitrarily, and deviation (inhiraf) from the straight path. Likewise, a contemporary of Rahmat Allah, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98), conceived of tampering as referring essentially to interpretation rather than actual verbal corruption of the text. But neither of these moderate views had the popular appeal of the case Rahmat Allah made for textual corruption in a public debate which took place in Agra in 1854–in the politically-charged atmosphere just prior to the Mutiny.” (Chapter Two. The Doctrine Of Corruption As A Polemical Theme, pp. 22-25; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

81 Lazarus-Yafeh, “Tahrif,” 112. However, Goldziher quotes from a manuscript of al-Jawziyya the approach to a popular aspect of the tampering accusation taken by this 14th-century student of Ibn Taymiyya: “it is an entirely false idea when it is asserted that Jews and Christians have agreed together to expunge [the name of Muhammad] out of their scriptures in all the ends of the world where they live. No one among the learned Muslims asserts this, NEITHER HAS GOD SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS IN THE QUR’AN, NOR HAS ANY OF THE COMPANIONS, Imams, or Qur’an scholars expressed himself IN THIS SENSE.” “Über muhammedanische Polemik”, 373.

 

82 Ibn Taymiyya wrote in the 14th century that the Islamic position towards the textual corruption WAS STILL DIVERSE AND AMBIGUOUS: “If…they [Christians] mean that the Qur’an confirms the textual veracity (alfaz) of the scriptural books which they now possess–that is, the Torah and the Gospels–this is something which some Muslims WILL GRANT THEM and which many Muslims will dispute. HOWEVER, MOST MUSLIMS WILL GRANT THEM MOST OF THAT.” Cited by Martin Accad in “The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse,” 73. (P. 24; capital emphasis ours)

 

“Three particular earlier scriptures are mentioned by name in the Qur’an: the Tawrat, the Injil, and the Zabur. The names Tawrat and Injil first appear at the beginning of the third Sura, together at Q 3:3. The name Zabur first appears at Q 4:163.” (Chapter Three. Qur’anic Reference To The Earlier Scriptures, p. 39)

 

“Of the three Zabur references, we find in two of the verses the concept that God gave the Zabur to David.29 At Q 21:105 the third occurrence of Zabur is set in the form of a saying of God, that he wrote in that book, ‘The earth shall be the inheritance of my righteous servants.’30” (Pp. 41-42)

 

29 Q 4:163, 17:55. Tabari writes on zabur at 4:163: “It is the name of the book that was revealed to David, just as he named the book that was revealed to Moses as the Tawrat and that which was revealed to Jesus as the Injil and that which was revealed to Muhammad as the furqan, because that is the name by which what was revealed to David was known. The Arabs say zabur Dawud, and because of that the rest of the peoples know this book.” Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol. IX, 402. Muqatil comments on zabur at Q 4:163: “It contains neither statute nor command, neither obligation nor permitted nor forbidden, [but has] 150 suras.” (P. 41; bold emphasis ours)

 

“Another indication of the approach to the earlier scriptures in the Qur’an comes from the language of confirmation. A series of verses seems to claim that what God is now revealing to the addressees of the Qur’an has essential links to revelations of the past.

 

“The term musaddiq, from saddaqa, means CONFIRMING, ATTESTING, OR PRONOUNCING TO BE TRUE,56 as in its first Qur’anic appearance, ‘And believe in that I have sent down, confirming (musaddiqan) that which is with you, and be not of the first to disbelieve in it’ (Q 2:41). This active participle occurs some 18 times in the Qur’an. Of that total, 14 occurrences are distributed throughout Suras 2-6. Beyond Sura 6 there are four occurrences, two of them in Sura 46.57 In addition to this, the term tasdiq,58 verbal noun of saddaqa, appears in Q 10:37 and 12:111.

 

“The object of the participle and verbal noun is generally one of a number of indistinct phrases which could be understood to refer to earlier scriptures. The most frequent object is ma bayna yadayhi59 and similar phrases at Q 2:97; 3:3, 50; 5:48; 6:92; 35:31; 46:30; and 61:6. A second frequent object is ‘what is with them’60 and similar phrases at Q 2:41, 89, 91, 101; 3:81; and 4:47. The subject of confirmation in those verses is generally ‘what I have sent down’ (Q 2:41) and similar phrases. ‘A book (kitab)’ or ‘the book’ is frequently specified; at Q 2:89 ‘a book from God’; and in one of the tasdiq verses, ‘this qur’an’ (Q 10:27). Other subjects include ‘messenger’ (Q 3:81) and ‘a messenger from God’ (Q 2:101).

 

“The Torah appears as the object of confirmation at Q 3:50, 5:46, and 61:6. In those verses, the subjects are ‘Isa and the scripture sent down upon him, the Injil. At Q 46:12, the Torah is updated by ‘hadha kitab’: ‘Before it was the book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and this is a book confirming, in Arabic tongue, to warn evildoers, and good tidings to the good-doers.’61 At Q 3:39, angels say to Zakariyya, ‘God gives you glad tidings of Yahya, confirming a word (kalima) from God.’

 

“In two of the verses there appear parallel phrases which shed light on the meaning of confirmation. The first is at Q 5:48: ‘We have sent to you the book in truth, confirming (musaddiq) what is before it from the book, and guarding it in safety (muhaymin).’ The second is at Q 10:37: ‘it is a confirmation (tasdiq) of what is before it, and a distinguishing (tafsil) of the book, wherein is no doubt.’

 

“The impression given by these verses containing musaddiq or tasdiq is that the revelation conceived of as being sent down by God in the present is thought to align with what God has sent down in the past.62 There seems to be a claim of correspondence. These verses VOUCH FOR THE TRUTH OF EARLIER REVELATIONS, WHICH IS THE SENSE OF SADDAQA. At the same time these verses bring the authority of the past revelations to bear on the present revelation. This helps the reader understand the context for the verses of tampering in the Qur’an, and also indicates one expression which may have been in the minds of the exegetes when they set about to explain the meaning of the verses of tampering.” (Pp. 47-48; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

56 Wansbrough renders musaddiq as “verification of earlier prophets and scriptures,” Quranic Studies, 65.

 

57 At Q 6:92, 35:31, 46:12 & 30, and 61:6.

 

58 Confirmation, attestation; belief; assent, agreement, approval.

 

59 Frequently translated “that which was before it,” but which means literally “what is between his two hands.” Madigan renders it “… WHAT IS ALREADY PRESENT.” The Qur’an’s Self-Image, 137. (P. 47; capital emphasis ours)

 

“The Qur’an provides qualitative descriptions of the earlier scriptures which appear to be uniformly respectful. A striking example is at Q 6:154: ‘Then we gave to Moses the book, complete for him who does good, and distinguishing everything, and as a guidance (hudan) and a mercy (rahma).’ These and other epithets repeat throughout the Qur’an. The Torah is characterized as containing ‘guidance and light (nur).’ The Gospel is also called ‘a guidance and an admonition (maw‘iza) to the godfearing.’ The Torah is said to contain ‘the judgment (hukm) of God.’ The book given to Moses is described as a guidance to the Children of israel. God also gave ‘the book of Moses’ for a standard (imam) and a mercy. The tablets which God wrote for Moses contain ‘an admonition and a distinguishing (tafsil) of everything. The book given to Moses and Aaron is described as the ‘manifesting’ (mustabin) book.

 

“In other contexts, the Qur’anic approach to the earlier scriptures can be seen in the actions which are associated with them. At Q 3:93, for example, is an appeal to opponents in the midst of a polemical situation to ‘Bring the Torah now, and recite it, if you are truthful.’ A similar understanding is given at Q 10:94: ‘If you are in doubt regarding what we have sent down to you, ask those who recite the book before you.’ These verses seem to indicate that the Torah was readily available, and could be produced to resolve disputes or answer questions. They also suggest a measure of authority to the contents of the Torah. A third situation of this type is in view at Q 5:43, where the Torah is said to be with (‘inda) the Jews, and to contain God’s decision. At Q 5:44, the prophets and religious leaders of the Jews are said to have judged the Jews according to the Torah, and these leaders were entrusted with the protection of ‘the book of God.’ Similarly, the ‘people of the Gospel’ are urged to make their judgments according to the contents of the Gospel. All of the People of the Book are also challenged to ‘stand fast’ or act according to the Torah and Gospel.

 

“These Qur’anic descriptions of the earlier scriptures appear to be UNIFORMLY POSITIVE AND RESPECTFUL. The MOST NATURAL IMPRESSION to be taken would be that they represent a conception of sacred texts WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AND INTACT. There does not seem to be any hint, in any of the verses mentioned above, that the recitations which are conceived of being presently ‘sent down’ contradict the contents of the earlier scriptures. There is NO EVIDENT SUGGESTION in these verses that ANY of the scriptures exist in an altered state. The associations of the terms kalam and kalim (‘word/words’) with the verb harrafa will be thoroughly examined below. Otherwise, the references to earlier scriptures in the Qur’an WOULD NOT seem to trigger thoughts of their corruption.

 

“These descriptions of the earlier scriptures in turn provide a context for the exegetical development of the motif of tampering. The exegete who wants to write about the earlier scriptures will be constrained to keep in mind what the Qur’an itself says about them. If he chooses to go against the characterizations found in the Muslim scripture, he risks his reader’s accusation of contradicting the word of God.” (Pp. 48-50; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“… When the term musaddiq first appears at Q 2:41, Tabari glosses the scriptural phrase ‘in confirmation of what is with you’ as the qur’an CONFIRMS WHAT IS WITH THE JEWS OF BANU ISRA’IL OF THE TORAH.119 … In his exegesis of the phrase ‘what was with you,’ Tabari is straightforward in saying that the Torah and the Gospel ARE WITH THE JEWS, and he cites a tradition which claims, ‘they find Muhammad… written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel.121

 

“Tabari provides further explanation of musaddiq at several other occurrences of the term in Suras 2-6. At Q 4:47 he glosses ‘confirming’ as muhaqqaq,122 WITH THE SENSE OF VERIFYING OR SUBSTANTIATING. He offers an interesting discussion of the scriptural term, with which musaddiq is set in parallel at Q 5:48, muhaymin.123 Tabari and a large number of traditions provide a variety of glosses for muhaymin (‘guarding it in safety’): PROVIDING EVIDENCE (shahid) THAT IT IS TRUE AND FROM GOD, ASSURING (amin) it, guarding (hafiz) it, supervising (raqaba) it, and entrusted (mu’taman) with it. The Qur’an does not contradict the Torah which God sent down on Moses, which is guidance and light.124 ALL OF THESE EXPRESSIONS INDICATE A CONCEPT OF TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE EARLIER SCRIPTURES.

 

“An anecdote which Tabari transmits in his explanation of musaddiq at Q 2:97 gives a good idea of the spirit of much of the material on the earlier scriptures in his commentary. In a tradition attributed to al-Sha‘bi, ‘Umar tells about being present with the Jews on the day of their study (midras) and being amazed ‘at how the Torah confirmed the truth (tasdiq) of the furqan, and how the furqan confirmed the truth of the Torah.’125 ‘Umar presses the Jews to say whether they know (‘alima) that Muhammad is the messenger of God. One of their learned and important men answers–though once more only because he has been adjured by God!–that they do indeed know that Muhammad is the messenger of God. ‘Umar then expresses amazement a second time: if they know that he is the messenger of God, why do they not follow (tab‘ia) him and attest (saddaqa) him?126

 

“The claim that Muhammad is confirming God’s earlier revelation also comes out strongly in the exclamation of triumph which the prophet of Islam makes at the end of the ‘stoning verse’ narratives. This exclamation is worded variously in the different accounts: In Muqatil’s tafsir Muhammad says, ‘I am the first to revive one of the sunnas of God.’127 Tabari’s commentary offers two expressions, the first addressed to God: ‘O God, I am the first who revived your command’ (al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib); and the second a claim of self-identity: ‘I IMPOSE (qada) WHAT IS IN THE TORAH’ (Abu Hurayra)…” (Chapter Six. Method And Meaning In Interpretation Of The Qur’an, pp. 188-189; capital emphasis ours)

 

119 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. I, 560.

 

120 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. I, 560-561.

 

121 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. I, 561 (trad. 816).

 

122 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. VIII, 440.

 

123 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. X, 377-382. Muhaymin, ‘guarding it in safety,’ is one of the terms which the Qur’an uses for the relationship of the recitation to the Torah.

 

124 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. XI, 530 (at Q. 6:92).

 

125 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. II, 381 (trad. 1608).

 

126 Jami’ al-Bayan, Vol. II, 381.

 

127 Ibn Ishaq’s version of the exclamation begins the same way as Muqatil’s but then includes a reference to the kitab of God: “I am the first to revive the order of God and his book and to practise it.” Sirat al-Nabi, Vol. II, 406. (Ibid)

 

“… The exegete was also familiar with many traditions which favoured Ishmael as the intended victim. But Tabari himself preferred to recognize Isaac as the victim–because this was the ‘established narrative’ about Isaac and Jerusalem.

 

“In Tabari’s mind, wrote Calder, popular narrative emerged historically prior to theological dogma, and therefore exerted greater authority for the exegete. In the two exegetical situations highlighted by Calder, Tabari knew–and transmitted–a range of opinion which was diverse to the point of contradiction. Over against 17 statements which favored identification of the sacrifice victim as Isaac, Tabari offered 24 statements from ‘authorities of similar weight and standing’ in favor of Ishmael. He had to defend his position against three major rational objections which had arisen to the identification of Isaac. With time, of course, Muslim theological dogma favored the identification of Ishmael, and this view found vigorous exegetical expression in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir. But even so, Tabari allowed narrative to determine his exegetical decision. ” (Chapter Seven. Influence Of Narrative Framework On Exegesis, pp. 211-212)

 

“The need in the narrative is to make a case for the truth of the claims of the prophet of Islam, and to show the Jews as brazenly refusing to acknowledge this truth. In discussing the former scriptures, the exegetes would want to show that the attestation of the prophetic status of Muhammad can be found in the former scriptures. They will also want to AMPLIFY the Qur’anic claim that the recitations which the Arabic messenger is making confirm what the People of the Book have with them. This would be consistent with Muhammad’s claim in the commentaries that he is reviving the commandments of God. In treating the obstinacy of the Jews, the exegetes would want to show that the Jews were fully culpable because everything they needed to know in order to make an appropriate response to Muhammad’s claims was right in front of them.

 

“This is indeed largely what happens in the commentaries. The dominant actions of tampering which the exegetes narrate are actions WHICH DEPEND for their narrative dynamic ON THE PRESENCE OF AN INTACT TORAH IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS OF MUHAMMAD’S TIME.” (Ibid, pp. 212-213; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“On Q 2:75 Ibn Ishaq relates basically the same story which Muqatil and Tabari offer in their explanation of the verse. The Jewish leaders hear the commands and prohibitions from God and understand them. But when they return with Moses to the people, a group of their leaders ‘changed (harrafa) the commandments they had been given’ by contradicting Moses and claiming that God had commanded something different. Ibn Ishaq here glosses ‘the word of God’ as ‘the Torah.’ However, the narrative he offers does not concern a text and its falsification, but rather only an audition of the voice of God and the verbal alteration of God’s commandments when reporting them to the people…

 

“Ibn Ishaq does not link a narrative with Q 5:13, though he provides details of the ‘treachery’ of the Jews against Muhammad in relation to Q 5:11. However, he provides a long narrative passage as the occasion of revelation of Q 5:41. The story is substantially the same as the verse of stoning story found in Muqatil, ‘Abd al-Razzaq and Tabari. ‘Abd Allah ibn Suriya, introduced as ‘the most learned man living in the Torah,’ affirms that the Torah prescribes stoning for adulterers. He says that the Jews know that Muhammad is a prophet sent by God, but don’t want to acknowledge the truth because of envy. Here Ibn Ishaq also attaches the story of a rabbi concealing a verse of stoning with his hand. The prophet of Islam calls for a Torah to be brought out. When ‘And Allah ibn Salam removes the rabbi’s hand from the page, the ‘verse of stoning’ is revealed. Muhammad says, ‘Woe to you Jews! What has induced you to abandon (taraka) the judgment of God WHICH YOU HOLD IN YOUR HANDS (bi-aydikum)?’ The Jews explain how they agreed to ‘adjust’ (aslaha) the punishment to flogging. The prophet of Islam then proclaims, ‘I am the first to revive the command (amr) of God and his book and its practice.’ ALL of the parts of Ibn Ishaq’s narrative ENVISION AN INTACT TORAH WHICH CAN BE PRODUCED AND READ ALOUD by the Jewish Torah experts. Muhammad’s proclamation that he revives God’s book appears to come out of a concept THAT THE BOOK IS AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE–whether the book’s custodians are trustworthy or not.” (Pp. 216-217; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“At several other points in his narratives about the response of the Jews of Madina to Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq appears to be working from a concept of AN INTACT AND SOUND TORAH. For example, he glosses Q 2:42, ‘do not conceal the knowledge which you have about my apostle and what he has brought when you will find it with you in what you know of the books which are in your hands.’ The three Jewish tribes of Madina shed each other’s blood, ‘WHILE THE TORAH WAS IN THEIR HANDS by which they knew what was allowed and what was forbidden.’ In relation to Q 2:89-90, God’s anger against the Jews is at ‘what they have disregarded of the Torah which they had’ by disbelieving in the prophet of Islam. The prophet wrote to the Jews of Khaybar that God had revealed the words of Q 48:29, ‘and you will find it in your scripture.’ Here Ibn Ishaq includes a rather remarkable challenge in Muhammad’s letter: ‘Do you find in what he has sent down to you that you should believe in Muhammad? If you do not find that in your scripture then there is no compulsion (kurh) upon you.’ In another story, the prophet of Islam enters a Jewish school and calls the Jews to God. In the ensuing exchange they disagree about the identity of Abraham, so Muhammad says to the Jews, ‘Then let the Torah judge between us.’ Ibn Ishaq claims that this was the occasion of revelation of Q 3:23: ‘Hast thou not regarded those who were given a portion of the book, BEING CALLED TO THE BOOK OF GOD, that it might decide between them, and then a party of them turned away, swerving aside?’ Abu Bakr invites a learned rabbi named Finhas to Islam because the Jew ‘knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel.’ Near the end of the Sira section on the Jews, a group of Jews put the question to Muhammad directly: ‘Is it true, Muhammad, that what you have brought is the truth from God?’ The prophet responds, ‘You know quite well that it is from God; you will find it written in the Torah which you have…. You know well that it is from God and that I am the apostle of God. You will find it written in the Torah you have.’ The claim in all of these examples is that the Torah which is in the possession of the Jews of Madina during the rule of Muhammad there will confirm his status as a prophet of God and the divine origin of the recitations which he is giving.

 

“Ibn Ishaq also links narrative with several of the katama verses, and the theme of concealing seems to be an important part of his characterization of the Jews. Besides Q 2:42, mentioned earlier, he treats Q 2:159, 3:71, 3:187, and 4:37. As sabab al-nuzul for Q 2:159, he tells a simple story about Arabs asking the Jewish rabbis about a matter contained in the Torah. The rabbis respond by concealing it from them and refusing (aba) to tell them anything about it. Ibn Ishaq’s asbab for the other three katama verses similarly appeal to the Jews to be honest about what they find in the Torah. The most logical conclusion from these stories is that the Torah which the Jews are encouraged to consult is understood by Ibn Ishaq to be the book which they have in their hands.

 

“A striking fact about the narratives Ibn Ishaq offers about the Ahl al-Kitab in the Sira is the absence of any accusation of the falsification of the previous scriptures…” (Pp. 217-219; bold emphasis ours)

 

“The Sira treats a remarkable number of the same verses of tampering which were identified through scholarly indications and through the semantic field of tampering. Ibn Ishaq provides a story of God’s actions in history through the Arabian prophet, into which he inserts Qur’anic verses of interaction and controversy with the People of the Book. From the other direction Muqatil, and to a certain extent Tabari, provide interpretation for the vague and contextless verses of the Qur’an by constructing above them a looming narrative framework. In both cases, the narrative favors the scenario of a variety of tampering actions revolving around AN INTACT TORAH.

 

“In setting out to write salvation history for the Muslim community, Ibn Ishaq was looking to portray continuity with the prophets of the Jewish and Christian communities and to demonstrate attestation from the scriptures of those communities. Continuity and attestation are elements of a narrative framework which works against the concept of a corrupted scripture in the hands of the Jews of Muhammad’s Madina. In fact, Ibn Ishaq claims repeatedly that the book in the hands of the Jews will attest to the prophet of Islam. The narrative framework of the Sira exclude not only traditions of textual falsification, but also the Qur’anic verses which seem to trigger the accusation in Muqaril’s and Tabari’s commentaries… The narrative framework influences the two exegetes to interpret the tampering verses mainly in the direction of actions of tampering WHICH ASSUME AN INTACT TORAH IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS.

 

“The influence of the narrative structure suggests a reason for why, though Muqatil and Tabari cite a number of falsification traditions, these traditions remain isolated in the commentaries; and why the treatment of falsification accusation by Tabari and his forebears has been characterized by scholars as RELUCTANT,48 CAUTIOUS,49 GUARDED,50 CAREFUL,51 and GENTLE.52”

 

48 Burton, “The Corruption of the Scriptures,” 105.

 

49 Saeed, “The Charge of Distortion,” 419.

 

50 Khoury, Polemique byzantine contre l’Islam, 210.

 

51 Hermann Stieglecker, “Die muhammedanische Pentateuchkritik zu Beginn des 2. Jahrtausends,” Theologische-praktische Quartalschrift 88 (1935), 75.

 

52 Fritsch, Islam und Christentum im Mittelalter, p. 57. (Pp. 220-221; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“This study set out to demonstrate the development of the theme of ‘tampering with the earlier scriptures’ by exegetes in the formative period of Qur’anic commentary. This goal has been achieved by a close examination and analysis of passages from the commentaries of Muqatil and Tabari. The passages chosen for special focus were exegetical treatments of the verses in the Qur’an which have traditionally been linked with the Islamic doctrine of the corruption of earlier scriptures. A set of 25 ‘tampering verses’ were found at the intersection of the lists offered in scholarly studies of Muslim polemic and the Qur’an’s semantic field of tampering. The description and analysis of the exegesis of these verses in the two commentaries culminated in summary statements of how the exegetes understood the Qur’anic verbs in the semantic field of tampering as well as several other scriptural expressions associated with the Muslim accusation of falsification.

 

“Examination of the commentary passages has shown that the exegetes in the formative period DID NOT in the first instance understand the Qur’anic verses of tampering TO MEAN THE TEXTUAL CORRUPTION OF THE EARLIER SCRIPTURES. Rather, they interpreted the verses to mean a range of actions of tampering done mainly by Jews, mainly contemporary with the prophet of Islam, and mainly related to the Torah. The Qur’anic verses themselves are not at all clear as to actor and action, locus and object of tampering. The exegetes aim to identify the ‘vague and ambiguous’ references of the text of scripture… The exegetes transmit traditions about the Jewish alteration of the Torah. These traditions seem to be linked in the commentaries with Q 2:79, and also attach to exegetical treatment of 3:78 and 5:13. The alteration traditions, however, are OVERSHADOWED in the commentaries by more dominant tampering traditions WHICH ASSUME THE EXISTENCE OF AUTHENTIC SCRIPTURES IN THE HANDS OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.” (Chapter Eight. Conclusion: Religious Claims and Human Response, pp. 223-224; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“The wording of the Qur’an on the earlier scriptures makes it difficult–with consistency–for the exegetes to speak of those scriptures as if they existed in a corrupted state. The material on the earlier scriptures in the Qur’an is uniformly positive and respectful. Most of this material appears in Suras 2-7. The earlier scriptures are portrayed there as touchstones of authority and attestation. The explicit claim repeated throughout these suras is that the revelation sent down to the messenger confirms the revelation sent down before it and now in existence ‘with’ the People of the Book. In the very same suras, and often in near contexts, occur verbs and expressions of tampering which create a mood of anxiety about how the People of the Book are handling the revelation which God granted to them. A survey of all of these materials showed that favorable descriptions of the earlier scriptures alternate with verbs from the semantic field of tampering and a number of idiomatic expressions associated with tampering.

 

“Exegesis of verses which contain these verbs and expressions shows a preoccupation with actions of deception such as concealing words of the earlier scriptures which describe the person and arrival of the prophet of Islam… Stories of deception are based on an understanding that the tampering is related to AN INTACT text of the earlier scriptures…” (Pp. 224-225; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

“A case for narrative influence was made with the assistance of scholarly insights into the exegetical method of Muqatil and the importance of narrative for Tabari. The intention to demonstrate the authority of Muhammad, it was argued, would determine the exegetical approach to the tampering materials in several respects. First of all, the attestation to the messenger and his message would be sought in the earlier scriptures. Secondly, the rulings of the messenger would be seen to be in line with the rulings of the earlier scriptures. Thirdly, the people who possess the earlier scriptures would be made culpable by their disregard of the truth in their hands. Fourthly, those Jews who respond appropriately to the prophet of Islam would be portrayed as dealing honestly with the earlier scriptures as they knew them. This case for narrative influence on the exegesis of the tampering verses was tested on another early work, the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, in chapter seven. In the Sira, the narrative is the central concern, and verses from the Qur’an are brought in to serve the story. The treatment of tampering verses in the Sirah showed a clear concern for all four aspects of the above approach. It was observed that not only does the Sira lack an accusation of the falsification of the earlier scriptures, but that it does not even make use of the verses which are associated with the accusation in the commentaries of Muqatil and Tabari.” (P. 226; bold emphasis ours)

 

“In summary, Muqatil and Tabari DID NOT in the first instance UNDERSTAND from the words of the Qur’an that Jews and Christians HAD FALSIFIED THEIR SCRIPTURES…” (P. 228; capital emphasis ours)

 

“… Initially, there was no way for Islam to establish claims of authority other than in terms of the older religious traditions. If Islam wanted to establish authority in these terms, however, it would need to refer to the revelations of the past and would tend to speak of these revelations in a favorable way. An accusation of the wholesale corruption of the earlier scriptures prior to the emergence of Islam would eliminate the possibility of proof of the essential attestation which those scriptures provide.” (P. 229)

 

“… It was noted in chapter seven that Tabari, after considering many conflicting traditions about the identity of the son of Abraham’s intended sacrifice, ASSERTED THAT THE SON WAS ISAAC. Muqatil before him had identified the son AS ISAAC WITHOUT INDICATING AWARENESS OF ANY OTHER OPTION. Both exegetes were free to consider the reliability of the stories of the Jews, or reports about the narrative in the Torah, that Isaac was the son involved…” (Pp. 229-230; capital emphasis ours)

 

“… Whatever Ibn Ishaq may have known in the second Islamic century about the use of standard polemical topoi in other religious communities, he did not in fact make accusation of the falsification of earlier scriptures in the Sira…” (P. 231; bold emphasis ours)

 

I don't know all of these Islamic scholars so if this article contains errors let me know.

 

Because of this I don't believe Islam's claim that the bible is corrupted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you are asking me to prove a negative proves that Jews and Christians - okay, maybe just Christians - are operating based on assumptions. You assume that the book of Isaiah was written by him until proven otherwise.

I am not asking for you to prove a negative. I am asking you to tell me why 1000 years of Jews, all agreeing that Isaiah wrote his books, are incorrect. The only thing I am assuming that Jews can be trusted to know who wrote their own holy books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course it does

 

lets look together, shall we

 

Jeremiah 8:8

"'How can you say, "We are wise because we have the word of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

 

but is there evidence for this in bible, of course

 

lets have look at corruption of the bible

 

How many Horsemen did David Capture, 1700 or 7000? 1. ,700 Horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4) - "And David captured from him 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers; and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots

 

 

 

vs.

 

2. 7,000 Horsemen (1 Chronicles 18:4) - "And David took from him 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers, and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved enough of them for 100 chariots."

 

how many?

 

 

is there more evidence of corruption of the bible??

 

watch evidence in this short clip

Andalusi I have already covered both Jerehmiah and the different number of horsemen. Please stop repeating yourself. I'm sorry but I think you posted a video. For some reason when people post videoes I only see a blank spot. Could you send me the link instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 The only thing I am assuming that Jews can be trusted to know who wrote their own holy books.

 

 

who wrote deutronomy for example? lets see what you got

 

 

 

Andalusi I have already covered both Jerehmiah and the different number of horsemen. Please stop repeating yourself.

 

you have not exaplaned anything, if you had i would not reapeat myself.

 

bring logical answer and i will stop repeat myself.

 

search for this video on youtube

corruption in the bible or quran deedat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×