Is The Bible Christian Hadith ?

[IQRA07]

I keep seeing Christians and Muslims comparing the Bible to the Quran (not saying I've never done it myself because I have). This , of course, seems quite natural due to the fact that these are the sacred scriptures of their / our respective religions. But it has occurred to me that perhaps this is an erroneous comparison because the way that the Bible and Quran were authored is quite different. The way the Bible , especially the Gospels of the New Testament came into being is far more comparable to another body of Islamic literature, namely the hadith. Let me explain:

The Gospels did not even begin being written down until decades after Jesus (as) was gone. The earliest not before 70 A.D. after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem following the failed Jewish revolt against the Romans. This is quite possibly because it was not until then that the followers of what was then basically a messianic madhab of Judaism realized that the promised return of Jesus(AS) would most likely NOT occur within their lifetimes. So in order to pass on the message and information about the life, sayings and doings of Jesus(AS) they began writing them down.

Similarly while the Quran was written down not only during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) but right in front of his face. On the other hand the hadith did not begin to be written down until well after his death. The science of judging which hadith are strong or weak etc. and the compilation of them into books took place centuries later.

There are various editions of the Bible. The Orthodox, Catholic , Coptic and Protestant Bibles all have different amounts of books. Books that were rejected by those who voted on and published the Bible we have today remained in use nonetheless by various groups of Christians long after what we know as the Bible had been standardized and published and distributed.

In like fashion many hadith that were rejected or considered weak by Abu Dawood, Bukhari, Muslim etc. have continued to be in use and circulation to this day. There are also various compilations of hadith which are accepted or rejected in whole or in part by various madhabs of muslims whilst being embraced wholeheartedly by others. Each claims their compilation is correct.

The majority of the New Testament is NOT revelation. Indeed in some editions the actual words of Jesus(AS) are printed in red ink so as to be easily and readily distinguishable at a glance from the rest of the text. These red lettered portions of the Gospels make up only a tiny fraction of the New Testament. The rest is a combination of accounts of the biography of Jesus(AS), letters from Paul, an epistle by John etc.

Equally the hadith itself is not revelation. It is accounts of the things that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) said and did and the events and circumstances surrounding these words and deeds. and just like one would have no context to understand the things that Jesus(AS) said highlighted in red without the surrounding text much of the Quran is difficult if not impossible to understand without the context provided by the hadith.

So perhaps we should as muslims acknowledge the value of the Bible in light of its similarity to our hadith literature. It perhaps makes more sense to compare the Quran to the Taurat than to the New Testament.

Just a thought. And Allah knows best

Edited March 28, 2013 by IQRA07

[abuzahra]

This is the argument put forward by the modern day Qur'anists to try and undermine the validity and value of Hadith. It may, to some extent, be applicable to the Sunni hadith corpus but does not apply to our hadith corpus because of the presense of infallibles until the 3rd century AH.

Allah knows best.

[Son of Placid]

It is reported that this guy said that this guy said that this guy said that uh, hadith. So many times the Quran is black and white then hadith adds it's shades of grey. Sunni hadith is Technicolor. Not so complimentary and getting worse. At least you didn’t compare it to the gossip of Barney.

Matthew was a recorder. Tax man turned disciple. It’s not like nothing was ever written until 40 yrs after Jesus left earth.

I do believe Paul’s letters were written...when he wrote them.

John actually did write some stuff, so did others. There's lists online tells you who's who and when.

In a way, I would think so. Some might have been compiled like hadith in the sense they wrote the stories as they were told/ remembered, and multi-sources, but they were much closer to the horses mouth than hadith. Much of the history of the Bible compilation is similar in events to that of the Quran. Spare part destroyed, n all.

You could look at the Gospels as the life and times of Jesus from four perspectives. After that the NT makes a tremendous shift in structure, (as did life).

It's kind of an apples oranges (and passion fruit) kind of thing.

[Ali-Reza]

If I had to compare Bible to any of our holy books, ONLY in terms of way it was collected and compiled, it would be nahjolbalagha.

[placid]

Hi IQ,

Quote: The Gospels as well as other NT books were compiled into a book hundreds of years after the death of Jesus

Response: --- (I was preparing this response for your comments on the other topic, but since you have started this one, it is more appropriate here.)

I want to say again, I have a high regard for Muhammad, and the Quran, and this topic should not be a comparison of the Gospels to the Quran, --- as they were revealed, and recorded some 600 years apart.

--- When one comes on the Forum and asks questions, or makes negative comments about our Faith, I try to answer them from Bible History and the Scriptures, --- and if the answers are not accepted, that is up to the individual.

I will give some of the available information and not pursue it beyond that.

--- The evidence from the Quran itself is that in Surah 3:3, God ‘confirmed’ the ‘Former Scriptures’ as true.

--- There was only one person in Bible History called Matthew, and He was the Apostle named in the Gospel in Matthew, 10:3, and in Acts 1:13, after observing the ascension of Jesus. --- This proves that Matthew was with Jesus from the time he was called from being a tax collection, and becoming the ‘recorder’ for Jesus, --- until after Jesus’ death, --- and Matthew continued as an Apostle, and writer.

Quote: Historians point out that during the formative years of Early Christianity, the position of Papias (Born before 70 AD, and died in 155) was corroborated by more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenged these two facts. --- End of quote.

The Greek Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke seemed to have followed the format of the first Gospel in Aramaic.

Mark and Peter worked together in Rome when Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, about 60 AD, while they were working there among the people. --- It could also have been called the Gospel of Peter, --- and because it was written for the Roman readers, there is less mention about the Law of Moses, or Jewish history and culture.

Matthew wrote a longer Gospel for the Jews with the history, prophecies of the OT, and their fulfillment in the NT. --- It was believed that he finalized it in Antioch, Syria, which was the Gentile Christian center, when he published it, perhaps a little later than Mark’s account, in the 60’s.

Luke was a Greek medical doctor and Historian, and He addressed his Gospel in Greek to a person of rank, “Most excellent Theophilus.” --- It was written for Greek readers. He also addresses the Book of Acts to the same Theophilus, as Luke travelled with Paul on his later Missionary journeys, and accompanied Paul to Rome about 60 AD, --- So Luke’s Gospel may have been published in Greece, perhaps from 66-68.

So Peter and Mark were in Rome and, Paul and Luke joined them in the ministry there. --- Peter wrote 1st and 2nd Peter, ---and Paul wrote some of his shorter letters from Rome.

Placid

[placid]

(To continue with The Gospel of John)

John, having access to the others wrote a general Gospel some years later, and did not follow the same format as closely, but added extra teaching, which was not in the others. --- It may have been published in the 80’s or 90’s, --- and they date The Revelation, which John also wrote, at about 95 AD.

John would have been perhaps 80-85 at that time and Papias would have been 15-20. Another follower, or disciple of John was Polycarp (Born in 69 AD and died in 155) --- And Polycarp’s follower was Irenaeus (130 AD -202) ---

Quote: He (Irenaeus) was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was traditionally a disciple of John the Evangelist (The Apostle, John). --- End of quote.

--- The four Gospel accounts, were written to different groups of readers, and they were NOT different and conflicting stories, as suggested, but they were the one story of the Gospel or ‘Good News’ of Jesus.

--- All attempts to find major contradictions have failed, so the best are ‘word discrepancies,’ which do not take away from the history of God’s intervention on earth, --- which came with enough emphasis on the New Covenant (Testament) to even restart the calendar.

The major events like the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, are recorded by all four Gospel writers, and John was there at the trials where they condemned Jesus, and was also at the foot of the cross with Mary, Jesus’ mother, and others.

--- The OT says, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established,” --- So the four Gospel writers, and the other Apostles were eye witnesses, --- of course, that is in addition to Jesus’ own prediction that He, ‘would be betrayed into the hands of men, be crucified, buried, and after three days, rise again.’

Also, Jesus was seen by over 500 witnesses at once, after His resurrection, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15: 6.

The only place the word ‘infallible’ is used in the Bible is in reference to Jesus being seen after His resurrection, where Luke records it in Acts 1:

1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,

3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

I believe it kind of verified ‘that’ in the Quran, when it speaks of Jesus this way:

2:87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit.

2:253 Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) and We supported him with the holy Spirit.

43:63 When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom, and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

64 Lo! Allah, He is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him. This is a right path.

--- Now if God ‘confirms’ these ‘former scriptures’ as being true in Surah 3:3, --- and also, that the Quran says this in Surah 5:

48 “To thee (Muhammad) We (God) sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety.”

--- (This seems to says, not only 'confirming,' but 'preserving' --- both the former Scriptures and the Quran, [which was only partly revealed by the time Surah 5 was recorded]).

---While I believe it, --- that doesn’t mean that others have to, because there is to be no compulsion in religion.

--- Someone said, “A man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Placid

[Abu Hadi]

--- The evidence from the Quran itself is that in Surah 3:3, God ‘confirmed’ the ‘Former Scriptures’ as true.

This verse confirms the 'Taurat' and the 'Injeel'. These books no longer exist in their original unaltered form.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking the 'Injeel' means the Bible. It doesn't.

If that is what you are asserting, then I would ask you which Bible ? Since there are hundreds of different versions, all

different from one another.

[Son of Placid]

This verse confirms the 'Taurat' and the 'Injeel'. These books no longer exist in their original unaltered form.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking the 'Injeel' means the Bible. It doesn't.

He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

Not exactly what it says to me. The Quran picks and chooses which of "The Book" it confirms which doesn't bother me any. Once past the first four books of the OT it goes on with history and traditions that are of little help nowadays. The Injeel is the revelation given to Jesus which is recorded in "The Book" as well.

This "Book" was established 300 yrs before Muhammad.

The notion that this "book" is too obscure to believe is probably the reason for 3:4, which is a warning to those who would prefer to ignore.

I see no reason why God would tell Muhammad thru Gabriel about some obscure books he would never see unless God didn't mind Gabriel babbling on about nothing. Possible Gabriel's nickname is Gabby? Both the Bible and the Quran mention the uslessness of idle talk, why would God and Gabriel indulge?

If that is what you are asserting, then I would ask you which Bible ? Since there are hundreds of different versions, all

different from one another.

Could you please bring forward some of these different versions that are so different?

[Abu Hadi]

He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

Not exactly what it says to me. The Quran picks and chooses which of "The Book" it confirms which doesn't bother me any. Once past the first four books of the OT it goes on with history and traditions that are of little help nowadays. The Injeel is the revelation given to Jesus which is recorded in "The Book" as well.

This "Book" was established 300 yrs before Muhammad.

The notion that this "book" is too obscure to believe is probably the reason for 3:4, which is a warning to those who would prefer to ignore.

I see no reason why God would tell Muhammad thru Gabriel about some obscure books he would never see unless God didn't mind Gabriel babbling on about nothing. Possible Gabriel's nickname is Gabby? Both the Bible and the Quran mention the uslessness of idle talk, why would God and Gabriel indulge?

Could you please bring forward some of these different versions that are so different?

The "Book" was given to Prophet Jesus(may peace and blessing be upon him) in it's complete form. It was left with the Disciples after Jesus(p.b.u.h)

left this worldly existence. They were not careful in protecting it. It was a test which they failed. Thus, the need for Allah(s.w.a) to clarify His(s.w.a) message in the Quran which is still in it's original form. That is why we call the Quran the Furqan, that thing which distinguishes between truth and falsehood.

As to the many versions of the Bible, are you serious ?

Do you want me to list them for you ? It would be a very long list. You can google it and see for yourself.

[Son of Placid]

Before I get started, just let me say this is my take on it. I look at the Bible and Quran on a more level field, and these are my reasons why. It's not mainstream Christianity, nor is it heresay for the simple reason that God inspired and protected His scriptures for us, and contrary to popular belief, in order for the the Quran to confirm, it must have something to confirm. No way the Quran would say 26 times that it confirms past scripture without having past scripture to confirm. The majority of the 26 times call it "The book", not books. The Bible and Quran align, we just don't know how yet.

The "Book" was given to Prophet Jesus(may peace and blessing be upon him) in it's complete form. It was left with the Disciples after Jesus(p.b.u.h)

left this worldly existence.

Jesus never carried a book. Mentioned 9 times in the Quran with no clear description of it being a real book, I'm thinking the Injeel was the revelation given Jesus which He spoke. I doubt it would have ever been the intention of the publishers to red letter the Injeel in the NT. I can almost see God's irony in there somewhere.For that reason I would suggest you heed the warning of 3:4 and read at least that much of the Gospels.

They were not careful in protecting it. It was a test which they failed.

Yeah, i'd have to see some history according to that. Easily said, but...

Thus, the need for Allah(s.w.a) to clarify His(s.w.a) message in the Quran which is still in it's original form. That is why we call the Quran the Furqan, that thing which distinguishes between truth and falsehood.

The Quran does a very good job of it too, If you stick with the Quran. It helps if you do. All too often I think I'm hearing a Quranic concept and come to find out it's wrapped in hadith. Gets confusing.

As to the many versions of the Bible, are you serious ?

Do you want me to list them for you ? It would be a very long list. You can google it and see for yourself.

Hang on...In the last 50 - 60 years there's been a lot of "translations" or transliterations of the Bible. Some are written in US English, some are high school vocab, some are gender gentile, (gimme a break) but there's not much chance that's what Gabriel was talking about, and you could tell me the uslelessness of talking about the obscure.

I've had and seen lists. People think 70 years after Jesus died...All eye witnesses probably dead by then. Jesus left around 33 AD so 70 is only 40 yrs later. No time for this guy told this guy told this guy, etc. This disciple wrote it, told it, dictated it, it was written, quoted, whatever.

Here's what's happening as I see it. The biggest problems Muslims have with the Bible is not actually the Bible. The biggest arguments are what's not in the Bible. It's called doctrine. The majority of Christian doctrine does not come from the Bible.

They say it does, you believe them and thus, the Bible is obviously corrupted. Can't blame you for seeing it that way.

[placid]

Hi Abu,

Quote from Post 7:

(I said) --- The evidence from the Quran itself is that in Surah 3:3, God ‘confirmed’ the ‘Former Scriptures’ as true.

(You said) This verse confirms the 'Taurat' and the 'Injeel'. These books no longer exist in their original unaltered form.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking the 'Injeel' means the Bible. It doesn't.

If that is what you are asserting, then I would ask you which Bible ? Since there are hundreds of different versions, all

different from one another.

Response: --- Sorry if I was quoting something that you believe is no longer accurate.

We seem to have some good discussions going, and I sometimes use from one, to respond in another. --- On another topic one says that every word in the Quran is true, --- and then lists 101 discrepancies (called contradictions), to say that the Bible isn’t true. --- In response, I say, “Okay, let’s accept that every word in the Quran is true,” --- Then as I read Surah 3:3, --- I read it like this:

3 Pickthall: He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

3 Yusuf Ali: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

--- So the ‘former Scriptures,’ is part of the statement of what is confirmed, --- the last part is --- even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. --- So, in my understanding, God was revealing, ‘step by step’ or, Surah by Surah, the revelations to Muhammad, --- the same way that the Torah was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel was revealed to Jesus. --- (And there were still more Surahs to come later.)

--- The ‘injil’ or Gospel was never a Book, but was given to Jesus through His intellect, the same way that the revelations had to have been given to Muhammad, through his intellect, is that not right?

Jesus had said, ‘all that God gave to Him, He taught to the disciples.’ --- therefore, this is the purpose of the Red Letter Edition, which gives all of His words in red (right through The Revelation, because He revealed further things to John long after the Gospels were written and distributed.) --- The four Gospels are four eye witness accounts of the one Gospel Message from God to mankind.

Also, I like to believe that all of the revelations in the Quran do ‘confirm’ the former Scriptures, because they record the history, mention the names of kings and prophets and prophecies of the coming messenger John the Baptist, and the virgin birth of Jesus, His miracles, and His mission, as recorded in Surahs 3 and 19.

On another topic where someone mentioned the many Bible translations and all different, I gave the site I use, --- Quranbrowser.com --- where it gives 10 English translations, as well as the Arabic in English letters. --- These compare to the various versions of the New Testament, --- that all come from the same ancient Greek Manuscripts, do they not? --- So the translations of the Quran, from Arabic to English, and the versions of the NT from Greek to English, only differ by the choice of words of the translators, is that not right?

Also, on Biblegateway.com you can find some 40 different English Bible translations and versions that include the Catholic bibles, the Complete Jewish Bible and the Orthodox Jewish Bible.

If people spent more time reading in the Quran and the Bible, and less time reading criticism about them, --- they would be better informed.

You wouldn’t want to be defended by a lawyer who never read the law books, would you?

I have said before, that a Moderator on Shiachat told me, “If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran.” --- I did, and I have.

Another post that made me smile was a comment where one said, --- Son and I were not ‘normal’ Christians. --- I guess we don’t fit into the ‘dogmatic category’ because we study the Scriptures, not just ‘Churchianity.’

We are open to other input, --- but not influenced by it. --- In the same way, we look for those who study the Quran, --- so we can have good conversations with them on it and the Bible.

(Sorry for my usual longer posts, but I believe that ‘studious ones’ will read.)

Placid

[Robin Hood]

I agree with this. The Bible is the word of God, eventhough it's not perfect. We have many weak hadith, still we shouldn't become Quranists.

[Sumerian]

I agree with this. The Bible is the word of God, eventhough it's not perfect. We have many weak hadith, still we shouldn't become Quranists.

The Quran is the best book.

[CLynn]

This verse confirms the 'Taurat' and the 'Injeel'. These books no longer exist in their original unaltered form.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking the 'Injeel' means the Bible. It doesn't.

 

Greetings Abu Hadi,

 

The injeel is meant to mean the words of Jesus, and if muslims are meant to accept, believe, and follow Jesus, tell me please where they were expected to get His words from?

Muhammad said to accept the teaching of all the former prophets...

well to accept their teachings, you have to 'know' their teachings.

Obviously Muhammad felt that this knowledge was available... If I am remembering correctly, somewhere in the qur'an He says to, 'go and ask those of the former scriptures'.

 

Salaam,

Clynn

 

note:

The scriptures have not changed.

Just as there are many translations of the qur'an... but would you say there are many different qur'an's?  or that 'the qur'an has been changed?

 They were not careful in protecting it. It was a test which they failed. Thus, the need for Allah(s.w.a) to clarify His(s.w.a) message in the Quran which is still in it's original form. That is why we call the Quran the Furqan, that thing which distinguishes between truth and falsehood.

 

Greetings Abu Hadi,

 

If 'Allah' felt the need to straighten things out, then why does the qur'an bring none of what Yshwe(Isa, Jesus) taught?

 

Salaam,

CLynn

[andres]

 

Similarly while the Quran was written down not only during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) but right in front of his face. On the other hand the hadith did not begin to be written down until well after his death. The science of judging which hadith are strong or weak etc. and the compilation of them into books took place centuries later.

The majority of the New Testament is NOT revelation.

Equally the hadith itself is not revelation. It is accounts of the things that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) said and did and the events and circumstances surrounding these words and deeds. and just like one would have no context to understand the things that Jesus(AS) said highlighted in red without the surrounding text much of the Quran is difficult if not impossible to understand without the context provided by the hadith.

So perhaps we should as muslims acknowledge the value of the Bible in light of its similarity to our hadith literature. It perhaps makes more sense to compare the Quran to the Taurat than to the New Testament.

 

It makes a difference that the Quran claimes to be a revelation, and the Gospels are human testimonies. But while the hadiths are there to explain the Quran, the Bible speaks for itself. 

 

I have learned that the Quran was collected from oral and fragments written on all sorts of material by Zayd ibn Thabit. After Muhammed died. If you believe this tradition, the Bible and the Quran is not that different. Textual critic of the Quran has just begun so we will learn more about this. 

 

I can not avoid wondering that if "the Quran is difficult if not impossible to understand without the context provided by the hatith", the Quran has a problem when Shias and Sunnies can not agree on which hadiths to use.

[PeaceLoving]

I can not avoid wondering that if "the Quran is difficult if not impossible to understand without the context provided by the hatith", the Quran has a problem when Shias and Sunnies can not agree on which hadiths to use.

 

Hadith and Islamic history both have many variants - in fact, lots. 

 

And as you say quite rightly, it is not at all easy to establish exactly what happened.

 

Having said that, I must add that scholars do spend a life time trying to solve this massive puzzle.

 

But unfortunately in the end, all the different sects come up with answers of their own.

 

Shias and Sunnis are the two major ones but there are many other sects and sub-sects in Islam.

 

There is no uniformity even within a given sect.  

 

Scholars of a given sect could interpret things differently. 

 

But I am glad that you make this point.

 

Your statement blows away arguments made against the Quran, both by web nuts on the Internet as well as in the media and in books and other publications.

 

If the Quran needs context to be understood properly, how on earth is everyone so fond of plucking verses out of context (usually singly) to express their defamatory claims?

 

And worse still, if the context cannot be agreed upon, where does all that lead us?

 

I do not know about other Muslims but as far as I am concerned, I take my direction from verses, where the sense is not subject to major modification by any context or other factors - like the verses I posted a few days ago in another thread.  

 

Thank you

[andres]

If this "blows away" the arguments against the Quran or the Bible depends on the position the "defender" takes. Defending becomes a lot easier if you do not claim they were written by God. We know Christians as well as Muslims do not agree on how to interpret the written word, nor the context in which the Bible or Quran shall be understod, or wether the environment in which they were composed should be taken into consideration.The result can obviously be so diverse that what one believer does not think is offensive to God, to another believer is an offens so great, that only a person possesed by the devil can say something that horrible. Today Christians seem to feel more free to have personal opinions than are Muslims, but during the dark middel age in Europe the roles seem to have been opposite.

Happy New Year!

[Haydar Husayn]

Defending becomes a lot easier if you do not claim they were written by God.

Obviously, since you can just pick and choose whatever you like, using modern secular humanism as your exegetical framework.

[baqar]

We know Christians as well as Muslims do not agree on how to interpret the written word, nor the context in which the Bible or Quran shall be understood, or whether the environment in which they were composed should be taken into consideration.

 

He was talking about hadith and history, not the Quran. As far as the Quran is concerned, the disagreement in interpretation is only with a small number of verses. 

 

Defending becomes a lot easier if you do not claim they were written by God.

 

God did not write anything. The Quran is a collection of messages sent by God. That does not mean that God wrote anything. The messages are not formulated in a style that is always easily comprehensible. They are heavily context-related and have been packaged together out of chronological sequence.  

 

However, while some points may not be very clear, the overall ethical and moral teachings are astoundingly beautiful and marvelous. 

Happy New Year to you too

[hasanhh]

(salam)

 

IQRA07: Read The History of the Church written by Eusebius ~325CC. In it, you will see that in compiling the New Testament, the representatives of the four (of five) church regions had to 1) make "political" compromises, and 2) do something akin the hadith science --for example, they had 10 versions of "Matthew" to sort out,

 

 

 

Placid: Your first sentence about "confirmed". What is "confirmed" are the First and Second Commandments primarily (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5) and then more minor details. Also, the Old Testament as we know it is from the late 3rd Century B.C.C. (~ -220) when it was re-written during and after the Maccabean Revolts.

[andres]

As far as the Quran is concerned, the disagreement in interpretation is only with a small number of verses.

God did not write anything. The Quran is a collection of messages sent by God. That does not mean that God wrote anything.

Many or few verses, you muslims like we christians draw very diferrent views from our holy books

Everybody on this forum inlusive me know God did hold the pen himself. Maybe I should not have simplified this. Sorry.

[placid]

Hi Hasan,

From the History of the Church by Eusebius:

Quote: The Church History (Latin: Historia Ecclesiastica or Historia Ecclesiae) of Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea was a 4th-century pioneer work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity from the 1st century to the 4th century. It was written in Koine Greek, and survives also in Latin, Syriac and Armenian manuscripts.[

Eusebius --- For example he wrote that Matthew composed the Gospel according to the Hebrews and his Church Catalogue suggests that it was the only Jewish gospel.

Response: --- I find nothing to say that Eusebius was more than a historian, --- and the Gospels in Greek were copied and distributed from the time they were written in the first century, and Eusebius was born 263, died 339, --- so he was after the Church Fathers, but he wrote of them as well. --- His main work seemed to be updating the Septuagint, the OT from Hebrew to Koine Greek. --- He compiled a ‘catalogue’ in their library, --- and in the NT he gave headings to paragraphs, making division between the subjects, --- Which had nothing to do with translations since the Gospels were already in Koine Greek.

--- There may have been different copies of the Manuscripts or even sermons on them as well, --- but there is only one Gospel Message, and as Eusebius verifies, it was written first in Hebrew (or Aramaic, the Hebrew dialect of the time).

From the Zondervan Bible Dictionary:

Quote: In the New Testament the evidence for the reliability is large, and includes about 4500 Greek Manuscripts, dating from about 125 AD. --- The old Latin and Syriac versions go back to about 150 AD. --- End of quote.

So the Scriptures were preserved from that time. --- There were periodical updates of the languages and new translations to other languages, but the writing could always be verified back to the Greek Manuscripts.

The evidence is in the Quran that it had been translated into Arabic before the time of Muhammad and Ali.

The greatest evidence for us is that the Scholar, Jerome, translated from the Old Latin and Greek into the Latin Vulgate which was produced about 400 AD and the Codex Siniaticus, and the Codes Vaticanus were produced from 350-400.

--- The Latin Vulgate was used in the Church from 400-1600, when the Latin Vulgate was translated into English, Douay Version, --- and I have a copy of the Douay Version.

About the same time in the 1500’s in England, King James commissioned 47 Bible Scholars and linguists to translate the Bible into English from the ancient Greek Manuscripts.--- So the Douay Version was translated from the Greek Manuscripts to Latin, and then to English, --- and the King James was translated from the Greek Manuscripts to English. --- They are basically the same, verse by verse, except for the choice of words by the translators. --- The Douay has extra Books in the OT, which were not included in the King James Bible because they were considered as historical and added little to the Scriptures themselves.

Quote from Post 20:

What is "confirmed" are the First and Second Commandments primarily (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5) and then more minor details

Response: --- It says quite plainly what was confirmed in Surah 3:

2 God! There is no god but He, - the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

4 Before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). Then those who reject Faith in the Signs of God will suffer the severest penalty, and God is Exalted in Might, Lord of Retribution.

--- Basically the (step by step) Surahs (up to the time of the writing of Surah 3, about year 3 of the Hijrah), confirms the Scriptures that went before it in the Torah and the Gospel, because these historical events are written plainly in the various Surahs, --- so it verifies them as true.

The Virgin Birth and the Miracle and healing Ministry of Jesus is verified in 3:49, and 5:110. --- Also the ‘Criterion of right and wrong” which was given to Moses, which was basically the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20, as they are a 'Code of Ethics' for all generations.

--- Notice that the Former Scriptures were verified in the Message for the angel Gabriel in about 625.

--- And the identification of our three Religions is outlined in Surah 5:

48 "And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it (Yusuf Ali: ‘guarding it in safety’). So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, ---.For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works."

To ‘vie’ means to compete as in a race, so we are to ‘try and outdo one another’ in ‘good works.’ --- A great way to start a New Year, is it not?

Placid

[andres]

The evidence is in the Quran that it had been translated into Arabic before the time of Muhammad and Ali.

Where in the Quran do you find this evidence?

[placid]

Hi Andres.

 

Happy New Year.

Quote: The evidence is in the Quran that it had been translated into Arabic before the time of Muhammad and Ali.

--- Where in the Quran do you find this evidence?

 

Response: --- It says this in the Zondervan Bible Dictionary:

Quote: The Old and New Testaments appeared very early in translations. The OT was translated into Greek between 250-150 BC, and other translations appeared soon after the beginning of the Christian era. Parts, at least, of the OT were rendered into Syriac as early as the first century, and a Coptic translation appeared probably in the third century. The NT was translated into Latin and Syriac by 150, and into Coptic by 200. In subsequent centuries versions appeared in the Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Geogian, Arabic, Persion, and Slavonic languages. --- End of quote.

 

First, a little history: It is not too surprising that there were some Jews and Christians in Mecca and perhaps more Jews in Yathrib, which became Al-Madinah (The City) after the Jewish leaders invited Muhammad and the Muslims to move from Mecca to Madinah.

--- Israel, was where the 12 Tribes of Israel (Jacob) settled. --- The descendants of Esau settled in southern Jordan, --- and the descendants of Ishmael, in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, --- so this is where all the descendants of Abraham settled, and they were cousins and relatives.

--- All the other Arab countries were first settled by descendants of the sons of Noah. According to the genealogies in Genesis. And they were called ‘Gentile’ Nations, Genesis 10:5. --- They seemed to avoid the deserts of Saudi Arabia, so it was preserved for Ishmael and his 12 sons, where God made them ‘a great nation,’ as He had promised Abraham. --- They began moving caravans from the North and East down to Egypt.

--- If you remember when Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave, it was to some Midianite traders from an Ishmaelite caravan, Genesis 37:23-28.     

 

They would grow up in Saudi Arabia knowing Arabic, and the Jews would likely have their Scriptures in Hebrew, and the Christians would have their Scriptures in Greek and Latin. --- So when it was all translated to Arabic, they could all read it.

 

Surah 12:2 Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand.

 

Surah 20:113 Thus we have revealed it as a Lecture in Arabic, and have displayed therein certain threats, that peradventure they may keep from evil or that it may cause them to take heed.

 

Surah 39:28 A Lecture in Arabic, containing no crookedness, that haply they may ward off (evil).

--- (Perhaps they disputed some verses in the translation from Greek to Arabic, so God gave them the same history and teaching through Gabriel in the Arabic language.)

 

Surah 41:3 A Scripture whereof the verses are expounded, a Lecture in Arabic for people who have knowledge,

 

Surah 42:7 And thus We have inspired in thee a Lecture in Arabic, that thou mayst warn the mother-town (Mecca) and those around it, and mayst warn of a day of assembling whereof there is no doubt. A host will be in the Garden, and a host of them in the Flame.

 

Surah 46:12 When before it there was the Scripture of Moses, an example and a mercy; and this is a confirming Scripture in the Arabic language, that it may warn those who do wrong and bring good tidings for the righteous.

 

 

So they would already have the Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. --- (These were the languages of the inscription on the cross, John 19:19-20.

 

Then there are simple verses like Surah 4:

47 O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you. --- (Both would have to be in the common language of Arabic, would they not?)

 

--- And this verse in Surah 10:

94 And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

 

--- (So this is saying, ‘If you doubt some of what we reveal to you Muhammad, --- ask those that read the former Scriptures, to verify it.’ --- Therefore both the former Scriptures and the revelations to Muhammad would be in Arabic, to confirm them both ways, would it not?

 

There is evidence that Khadijah, Muhammad’s wife, was a Christian, --- and at the time of his call to serve God, near the end of their summer month of retreat near Mecca, --- it says in the intro to the Pickthall translation:

Quote: On their return to Mecca she took him to her cousin Waraqa ibn Naufal, a very old man, “Who knew the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians,” who declared his belief --- that Muhammad was chosen as the Prophet of his people. --- End of quote.  (He would be a Christian because if he had neen a Jew he would not have 'known,' or 'understood' the NT, would he?)

 

--- There is no mention of how many more times Muhammad may have visited this Christian cousin for discussion.

 

Placid

[andres]

Response: --- It says this in the Zondervan Bible Dictionary:

Quote: The Old and New Testaments appeared very early in translations. The OT was translated into Greek between 250-150 BC, and other translations appeared soon after the beginning of the Christian era. Parts, at least, of the OT were rendered into Syriac as early as the first century, and a Coptic translation appeared probably in the third century. The NT was translated into Latin and Syriac by 150, and into Coptic by 200. In subsequent centuries versions appeared in the Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Geogian, Arabic, Persion, and Slavonic languages. --- End of quote.

 

I know you trust Zondervan, but Zondervan does not state that a translation of the NT into Arabic was available before the Quran was made. 

[andres]

They would grow up in Saudi Arabia knowing Arabic, and the Jews would likely have their Scriptures in Hebrew, and the Christians would have their Scriptures in Greek and Latin. --- So when it was all translated to Arabic, they could all read it.

 

Surah 12:2 Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand.

 

Surah 20:113 Thus we have revealed it as a Lecture in Arabic, and have displayed therein certain threats, that peradventure they may keep from evil or that it may cause them to take heed.

 

Surah 39:28 A Lecture in Arabic, containing no crookedness, that haply they may ward off (evil).

--- (Perhaps they disputed some verses in the translation from Greek to Arabic, so God gave them the same history and teaching through Gabriel in the Arabic language.)

 

Surah 41:3 A Scripture whereof the verses are expounded, a Lecture in Arabic for people who have knowledge,

 

Surah 42:7 And thus We have inspired in thee a Lecture in Arabic, that thou mayst warn the mother-town (Mecca) and those around it, and mayst warn of a day of assembling whereof there is no doubt. A host will be in the Garden, and a host of them in the Flame.

 

Surah 46:12 When before it there was the Scripture of Moses, an example and a mercy; and this is a confirming Scripture in the Arabic language, that it may warn those who do wrong and bring good tidings for the righteous.

 

 

So they would already have the Scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. --- (These were the languages of the inscription on the cross, John 19:19-20.

 

Then there are simple verses like Surah 4:

47 O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you. --- (Both would have to be in the common language of Arabic, would they not?)

 

--- And this verse in Surah 10:

94 And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

 

I have looked these quotes up (in my own language) but as I read it, the scripture in Arabic that the Quran reffers to, is the Quran itself and not the Bible.  

[andres]

Then there are simple verses like Surah 4:47

O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you. --- (Both would have to be in the common language of Arabic, would they not?)

 

--- And this verse in Surah 10:94

 And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

 

 

Here Muhammed is speaking about the scriptures that were revealed before the Quran. Scriptures that were available in the beginning of the 7th century, so that one could question those that read them. (That the Quran suggest Muhamed to question if in doubt, could indicate that these scriptures were not available in Arabic, or that Muhammed was illiterate.)

 

But which scriptures? The Quran does not specify. If Muhammed meant the New Testament as we know it and established as canon 325, we must conclude that Muhammed was very ignorant about the content since he reffers to them without any saving clause or reservation. If the "true Gospel" , the Injeel, was available in the Muslim world during Muhammed, it seems very unlikely that the muslim rulers was not able to preserve it to this day. So which scripture is the Quran here talking about? We will probably never know.

[Son of Placid]

I have a feeling that if we perceive the black and white to be an association of shades of grey and the white is the absence of truth we will never know anything.

 

We know from a hadith, or tafsirs, ( I forget the details) but Muhammad was tested once. Someone committed a wrong which was dealt with OT style by stoning. The question given Muhammad was should they be stoned or lashed? Muhammad said stoned, then turned to those with him and asked if he had answered correctly.

 

The underlying principle of our understanding is that if we don't understand, we decide an alternative we can understand, or fits our agenda. The Quran was a revelation to Muhammad and was recited as told, not as he understood it. Whether Muhammad understood what he was reciting is irrelevant

[andres]

Hi Son

I agree it is irrelevant if Muhammed understood or not. The Quran is the Quran. I also agree we make personal conclusions when we lack facts, but there are also things in this world we can say we know. Like that the Pacific ocean covers one half of the globe.

I have the feeling your post was aimed at me, so just let me clarify that I can not possible know which scripture Sura 10:94 is talking about. But I think I have got a good argument naming one scripture that is unlikely to be the one. The Injeel. Naturally the Injeel could have been lost in the years after Muhammed, and so I would be wrong. But even if followers of Muhammed failed to preserve it, it seems unlikely that such a scripture would disappear without any trace in Islamic or world history. I believe Sura 10:94 refers to the NT. Let me stress that this is only a guess.

Neither do I claim the Gospels were not translated into Arabic when Muhammed lived. Your father say so. I do not buy his arguments, but this does not mean I dare say a translation did not exist. I dare not even make a guess.

[PeaceLoving]

But which scriptures? 

 

We have had these discussions quite a few times in the past and each time it has ended in failure. For the last few days, I have noticed that it was being discussed again, except that this time there were no Muslims involved in the discussion.    

 

Since you have never before been part of this discussion (as far as I can remember), I like to make a few points. Each time this topic has been discussed, it has not gone very well.

 

Now, the Quran claims a book called 'Injeel' given to Jesus. Whether it is right or wrong, this is the Quranic claim. Unfortunately however, Muslims find it difficult to equate the NT to the 'Injeel'. I will not go into all the arguments but just one.

 

You see, if we were to examine verse [57:27] closely, we find that it clearly mentions that the 'Injeel' was given to Jesus by God. Since the NT came later and was cannot be seen as a book that existed in the time of Jesus, clearly,  it cannot be the same as 'Injeel'. That does  not mean that NT consists of falsehoods. That is by no means our contention. But it is clear that the NT is be the same as the 'Injeel'.

 

The expression 'former scriptures', also used several times in the Quran, is believed to include  the 'Torah' and the 'Injeel', but may include other divine books as well. But as we have discussed from [57:27], the former scriptures cannot refer to the NT'.

 

Also some points made by Placid are not quite right. He has quoted Zondervan to say that Muhammad was invited to Medina by Jewish leaders. That is completely false. The invitation was made by Medina Muslims, who later came to be known as the 'Ansar' (meaning Helpers), as opposed to 'Muhajireen' (implying immigrants from Mecca).

 

Secondly, I do not understand his point in quoting verses  [12:2], [20:113], [39:28] and [41:3].

 

Whatever his point, Placid has presumably picked Pickthall's translation, which uses the word 'lecture', which in his view is another word for the 'Quran'.

 

Anyway, let us see what some other translators have to say.  

 

ARBERRY

 

[12:2] We have sent down an Arabic Quran, haply you will understand.

 

[20:113] Even so We have sent it down as an Arabic Koran, and We have turned about in it something of threats, that haply they may be God fearing, or it may arouse in them remembrance.

 

[39:28] Koran, wherein there is no crookedness; haply they will be God-fearing.

 

[41:3] A Book whose signs have been distinguished as an Arabic Koran for a people having knowledge.

 

[42:7] And so We have revealed to thee an Arabic Koran, that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and those who dwell about it, and that thou mayest warn of the Day of Gathering, wherein is no doubt -- a party in Paradise, and a party in the Blaze

 

PALMER

 

[12:2] Verily We have revealed it - an Arabic Quran, happily you may understand.

 

[20:113] Thus have We sent it down an Arabic Quran. And e have turned about in it something of threats that haply they may be God-fearing or it may arouse in them remembrance.

 

[39:28] An Arabic Quran with no crookedness therein, haply they may fear God.

 

[41:3] A book whose signs are detailed, an Arabic Quran for a people who do know.

 

 [42:7] Thus have We revealed an Arabic Quran that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and all around it and warn them of a day of gathering, there is no doubt therein - a part in Paradise and a part in the blaze. 

 

RODWELL

 

[12:2] An Arabic Koran have we sent it down, that ye might understand it.

 

[20:113] Thus have We sent down to thee an Arabic Koran, and have set forth menaces therein diversely, that haply they may fear God, or that it may give birth to reflection in them.

 

[39:28] An Arabic Koran, free from tortuous wording, to the intent that they may fear God.

 

[41:3] A Book whose verses (signs) are MADE PLAIN - an Arabic Koran, for men of knowledge

 

[42:7] It is thus moreover that we have revealed to thee an Arabic Koran, that thou mayest warn the mother city and all around it, and that thou mayest warn them of that day of the Gathering, of which there is no doubt - when part shall be in Paradise and part in the flame.

 

SALE

 

[12:2] And which We have sent down  in the Arabic tongue, that peradventure you might understand.

 

[20:113] And thus have We sent down (this book), in the Arabic tongue, that haply they may fear God or that it may give birth to reflection in them.

 

[39:28] An Arabic Quran wherein no crookedness that they may fear God.

 

[41:3] a book the verses whereof are distinctly explained, an Arabic Quran, for [the instruction of] people who do not understand

 

[42:7] Thus have We revealed unto thee an Arabic Quran, that thou mayest warn the metropolis (of Mecca) and the (Arabs) who (dwell) round about it, and mayest threaten (them) with the day of the (general) assembly, of which there is no doubt. [One] part {shall then be placed in Paradise and [another] part in hell. 

[andres]

Hi Peace

So you read the verses that Placid quoted like I do? That the scripture in Arabic that the Quran speaks about is the Quran itself. Or....?

In which thread is the Injeel being discussed?

[placid]

Hi Peace,

 

 

Thank you for coming on this discussion, --- and I realize I made a mistake in the intro where I said the Jewish leaders invited Muhammad to Madinah, so I will quote it from Mr Pickthall’s introduction.

Quote: The opposition to his preaching (in Mecca) had grown rigid. He had little success among the Meccans. --- His mission was a failure judged by worldly standards, when at the season of the yearly pilgrimage, he came upon a little group of men who heard him gladly.

--- They came from Yathrib, a city more than 200 miles away, which since has become world famous Al-Madinah, “The City.” --- At Yathrib there were Jewish tribes that had learned Rabbis who had often spoken to the pagans of a Prophet soon to come among the Arabs, with whom, when he came, the Jews would destroy the pagans as the tribes of A’ad and Thamud had been destroyed of old for their idolatry. --- When the men from Yathrib saw Muhammad they recognized him as the Prophet whom the Jewish Rabbis had described to them.  --- On their return to Yathrib they told what they had seen and heard, with the result that at the next season of pilgrimage a delegation came from Yathrib purposely to meet the Prophet. These swore allegiance to him. --- Then they returned to Yathrib with a Muslim teacher in their company, and soon “There was not a house in Yathrib wherein there was not mention of the messenger of Allah.”

In the following year, at the time of pilgrimage, seventy three Muslims from Yathrib came to Mecca to vow allegiance to the Prophet and invite him to their city, --- End of quote.

 

--- So the Muslims in Mecca began to sell their property and move to Madinah. --- It picks up the same story in the intre to Surah 2:

Quote: The Jewish tribes, once paramount in Yathrib had, not very long before the coming of Al-Islam, been reduced by the pagan Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, --- each Jewish tribe becoming an adherent of one or the other. --- But they had preserved a sort of intellectual ascendancy owing to their possession of the Scripture and their fame for occult science, the pagan Arabs consulting their Rabbis on occasions and payed heed to what they said.

Before the coming of Al-Islam, the Jewish Rabbis had often told their neighbors that a Prophet was about to come, and had often threatened them that when he came, they (the Jews) would destroy the pagan Arabs. --- So plainly did they describe the coming prophet that pilgrims from Yathrib recognized  the Prophet when he addressed them in Mecca, as the same whom the Jewish Rabbis had described to them.

--- But the Jewish idea of a Prophet was one who would give them (the Jews) dominion, not one who would make them brethren to every pagan Arab who chose to accept Al-Islam,* (footnote meaning, “The Surrender,” --- i.e. man’s surrender to God’s Will and Purpose.)

--- When they found that they could not make use of the ‘newcomer’ they opposed him and tried to bewilder him with questions of their theology. --- End of quote.

 

The verses in Surah 5:41-44 give an example of how the Jews tried to waste Muhammad’s time by bringing questions about their law, and God gave him this instruction in verse 43:

“But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them? - therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.”

 

--- Muhammad was teaching the “Brotherhood of Believers, which would make all believers ‘brothers in faith,’ --- but the Jews felt they were superior because of their ‘scholarly status.’ --- However, they observed that the Muslims were facing Jerusalem when they prayed so:

Quote: This led to the misunderstanding of the Jews that the Prophet was groping his way to their religion and stood in need of their guidance and instruction. --- End of quote.

  

But this thought was completely gone with this instruction in Surah 2:

144 We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

--- Notice, Muhammad had not been facing Jerusalem but looking up to God. So he was instructed to look to Mecca, where the Kabah, the House of Prayer had some 360 idols at that time, --- However, this may have been a first indication to Muhammad that he would one day return. --- A few years later, he had a vision of returning.

 

--- So in reading this all again, --- the Jews welcomed Muhammad to begin with because they thought it would give them an advantage again, feeling that he would come in ‘under their umbrella’ --- but after some time, they rebelled against him.

 

I realize I said it wrong in saying that that ‘the Jews invited him,’ I should rather have said that ‘the Jews welcomed him.’

 

Placid

[PeaceLoving]

So you read the verses that Placid quoted like I do? That the scripture in Arabic that the Quran speaks about is the Quran itself. 

 

Hi Andres

 

Yes, they all refer to the Quran.

 

Please read the translations I have given in the previous post. It will be abundantly clear that they refer to the Quran.

 

Please note that those translations are not by Muslims, but by non-Muslims - all four.

 

In which thread is the Injeel being discussed?

 

I am sorry I cannot remember the titles of the threads but the topic has been discussed several times. 

[placid]

Hi Peace,

I will come back to the reason for using the Pickthall word Lecture,--- but now the subject is the Injeel.

While you say Quote:

Now, the Quran claims a book called 'Injeel' given to Jesus. Whether it is right or wrong, this is the Quranic claim. Unfortunately however, Muslims find it difficult to equate the NT to the 'Injeel'.

Response: --- Is there a verse or verses that say the Injeel was a Book?

--- Or was it the Message of “Good News” which both Gospel and Injeel mean?

Because the Injeel (Gospel) was given to Jesus, it naturally does not refer to the NT, --- but, I believe, only to the Message given to Jesus.

And how did He receive it?

Surah 3:48 Pickthall: And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel,

Yusuf Ali: "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

Hilali Khan: And He (Allah) will teach him ['Iesa (Jesus)] the Book and Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the faultless speech of the Prophets, wisdom, etc.), (and) the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).

Shakir: And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel.

Shakir is the only one that uses Injeel, --- and Hilali Khan uses Injeel (Gospel), --- The other translators use Gospel, except Rodwell who uses the word Evangel, which means ‘good tidings,’ or the Gospel.

So, here, the word Injeel and Gospel are interchangeable, are they not?

And how was it given? --- In checking all the verses I don’t see any place the Injeel or Gospel was singled out as a Book, --- but in the above verse it was given by revelation, the same as knowledge and wisdom, which were given to Jesus by the Holy Spirit of God.

There are interesting verses that speak this way, Surah 16:

43 And WE sent not as Messengers before thee but men to whom WE sent revelation - so ask those who possess the reminder, if you know not -

44 With clear Signs and Scriptures. And WE have sent down to thee the Reminder that thou mayest explain to mankind that which has been sent down to them, and that they may reflect.

And 21:7 And WE sent none as Messengers before thee but men to whom WE sent revelations. So ask the people of the reminder, if you know not;

The Revelations were given to Muhammad through his intellect also, were they not? --- It says this in Surah 42:

52 And thus have We revealed to thee the Word by Our command. Thou didst not know what the Book was, nor what the faith. But We have made the revelation a light, whereby We guide such of Our servants as WE please. And, truly, thou guidest mankind to the right path,

So, this is why I suggest (unless there are definite verses that say the Injeel was a Book), it was the Revelation of the Gospel, given to Jesus. --- If a person reads the words of Jesus in a ‘Red Letter Edition,’ they will have it all.

Jesus said this in John 17:

7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You.

8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

--- I don’t believe God would give something that important to mankind that could be carelessly lost.

Placid

[andres]

Does Sura 10:94 not say that persons having read the earlier revelation were alive? And does this not mean that this revelation existed in writing?