Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

What Did Muhammad Believe Before His Revelations?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I'm trying to understand something, and I'm a little confused...

 

In my discussions with Muslims over the years, I've been told that the Bible has been corrupted and cannot be trusted (even though no Muslim has been able to tell me when the Bible supposedly became corrupted).  I've also been told that Islam honors Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus as great prophets of God.  But here's my question -- before the Qur'an was revealed, what did Muhammad and those in his community know about Noah, Moses and Abraham, and where did they get their information about those prophets from?  Did they have their own historical records, or were they getting their knowledge from a corrupted Bible?  Or was the Bible correct 1,400 years ago in Muhammad's time, and only got corrupted after the Qur'an was revealed?  To word the question better, was the Bible ALREADY corrupted in Muhammad's time?  If so, the corruption (at least the corruption of the New Testament) would have to have occurred during the 600 years between the time of Jesus and the time of Muhammad.  And if the Old Testament had been corrupted in Jesus' time, He would have said so, but since He didn't, then both the OT and the NT would have to have suddenly become corrupted during the 600 years between Jesus and Muhammad (even though no corruption happened for thousands of years prior to that, and no corruption has occurred since then -- I find it amazing that the corruption could only have occurred in the time after Jesus, leading up to Muhammad!).  Is that the Muslim belief? 

 

Again though, the main question is, what did Muhammad know about Noah, Moses and Abraham prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and where did he get that knowledge from?  The corrupted Bible, or another source?

 

Peace,

The Rock   <><

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

There were Christians and Jews around. Mohammed (as) was monotheist, but didn't belong to any particular sect of believer. Most people were polytheist, so most likely he and his family kept their beliefs to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

When asking these question you first have to determine what Muslim sect you are talking to. Sunnis believe that Prophet Mohammed (pbuhahp) became a Prophet after he received his revelation.

 

Shias believe Prophet Mohammed (pbuhahp) was born a prophet the extent of his knowledge past present and future is debated. 

 

Also we musnt confuse the New Testament with what the Muslims believe to be Injeel which is Hz Isa's (as) revelation.

 

From the Muslim point of view The New testament is like the books on Hadith. Injeel the revelation has been lost completely

Edited by A true Sunni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

When asking these question you first have to determine what Muslim sect you are talking to. 

 

Well, he is asking on a site that calls itself SHIA-chat. So one would assume that unless otherwise specified, he wants his answers as per Shia theology.  

And yes, SR, notme is right.

 

There were also some Jews and Christians around, something I forgot to mention in my post.

 

While stats are obviously not available, my feeling is that most people were idol-worshipping non-believers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

I do not have the citation at hand, but I remember in hadith that Muhammad (pbuh) had said he (pbuh) had thought  before Sura lqra there was something unusual about his (pbuh) life.

 

His (pbuh) going up to the cave l never saw a good description about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ok, so it sounds like you're saying that Muhammad was most likely a believer in one God, but the only knowledge he (or anyone else in his community) would have had about Noah, Moses or Abraham would have been from the corrupted Bible that existed at the time. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Ok, so it sounds like you're saying that Muhammad was most likely a believer in one God, but the only knowledge he (or anyone else in his community) would have had about Noah, Moses or Abraham would have been from the corrupted Bible that existed at the time. Is that correct?

Not exactly. Remember that Ishmael would also have carried traditions regarding the prophets who preceded him, and there were other traditions which were not included in the Bible or Torah. There is also the possibility of divine inspiration before Mohammed (as) was given his mission.

Most likely people who sought knowledge could also know what was in the Bible of that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Ok, so it sounds like you're saying that Muhammad was most likely a believer in one God, but the only knowledge he (or anyone else in his community) would have had about Noah, Moses or Abraham would have been from the corrupted Bible that existed at the time. Is that correct?

 

Actually noone has said this at all. You are bringing your interpretation of events and trying to put words in peoples mouths. As i said right at the beginning first determine the sect the person who is replying to you is from. 

 

i have seen this corrupted bible/knowledge/prophet discussion elsewhere and its based on a false premise. In order to understand or pose a point/question you have to understand who you are posing it to.

 

in my earlier post i pointed out the New Testament is not Injeel so you can only discuss OT

Similarly asking what religion the Holy Prophet (pbuhahp) was is an illogical question to ask a Shia and I pointed out the reason why.

 

In order to understand you have to first have to understand the nature of the Holy Prophet (pbuhahp)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Solid Rock,

You ask a good question, “What did Muhammad believe before the revelations,” and I will give some info later, to add to what has been said.

However, I think if you read Post 241 on your previous topic, “Who said the Bible was corrupted?” --- you will see that the New Testament was the same from the early translations until now. --- I think it is time to stop talking about the Bible being corrupted because we have established that there is no mention of corruption in the Quran of the former Scriptures.

Rather, it says in Surah 5:
44 It was We (God) who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was ‘guidance and light.’ By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in surrender) to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God's book, and they were witnesses thereto
--- (There are many references to say that they had the OT, the Bible of the Jews, in the time of Muhammad.)

46 And in their footsteps We (God) sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was ‘guidance and light,’ and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.
47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
--- (This is why the Muslims can’t fault us Christians from believing the Gospel Message that was given through Jesus in the New Testament)

And notice the first part of the next verse:
48 To thee (Muhammad) We (God) sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety.
--- (This Surah was given about year 5 of the Hijrah and Muhammad received more revelations in the next 5 years, before his death.)

If this was revealed to Muhammad from God, through Gabriel, --- then there is the evidence in the Quran that the former Scriptures were from God, and were CONFIRMED AS TRUE, --- and then it says, that they WERE GUARDED IN SAFETY.

The other thing to note is that the “Injeel” means, Gospel, or “Good News” and the word 'Injeel' is used interchangeably with Gospel by the different translators, --- It says in Surah 3:
48 "And God will teach him (Jesus) the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,”

--- (But God didn’t give Jesus a book to read, but rather revealed the Wisdom to Him through His intellect. --- So I think it has been well established that there was never a book called the ‘Injeel,’ because the ‘Good news’ was the Gospel Message, which Jesus delivered verbally to the disciples.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all times, there is a Guide on earth, a witness.  I imagine the witness/guide on earth would've informed Mohammad about the True Tawrat (Torah) and Injeel (Gospel) and inherited him that knowledge, since he knew Mohammad would be a Prophet as his duty to be a Guide to those who are worthy of that guidance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

He and his family were Hanifis

حلفاء لله غير مشرفين به

The way of prophet Abraham peace be upon them both.

حنفاء لله غير مشركين به

There is no reason To doubt that he did not follow pagan ways. Ancient Arabian community was mosaic of pagans, deviant monotheistic sects, monotheistic individuals and families including the prophet family but not exclusive to it, Christians and Jews.

Prophet is a descendant of prophet Ishmael and prophet Ibrahim. I'm not getting the frowning over a monotheistic groups amid the pagans in ancient Arabia , the land is the land of the Abrahamic religions.

Yemen, mecca, madinah or yathrib were not Roman but they were geographically more likely to be influenced by the abrahamic religions than say Asia minor.

The guide today is imam Mahdi. He is not apparent but his existence and significance should lead the seeker.

Edited by Chaotic Muslem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This is all new knowledge to me. So Shias believe in an Imam that has hidden himself for 1400 years! Is he a human, and has he spoken to you?

How do we know that Muhammed was born a monotheist?

 

Interesting i was criticised earlier for pointing out that it is important to differentiate what sect you are and highlighted the different beliefs of sects. Looks like i wasnt that far from reality.

 

Also interesting that you didnt read the thread since this was answered in the first few posts.post no.4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Quote from Post 13:
He and his family were Hanifis
حلفاء لله غير مشرفين به
The way of prophet Abraham peace be upon them both.

Response: --- It verifies this in the Introduction to The Pickthall Translation that I have.
Quote: The Meccans claimed their descent from Abraham through Ishmael, and tradition states that their temple, the Kabah had been built by Abraham for the worship of One God. It was still called the House of Allah but the chief objects of worship were many idols which were called ‘daughters of Allah,’ and intercessors. The few who felt disgust at this idolatry, which had prevailed for centuries, longed for the religion of Abraham and tried to find out what had been its teaching. Such seekers of the truth were called ‘Hunafa’ (Sing Hanif), a word originally meaning “Those who turn away (from the existing idol worship), but coming in the end to have the sense of ‘upright,’ or, ‘by nature upright,’ because such persons held the way of truth to be ‘right conduct.’ These Hunafa did not form a community. They were the ‘agnostics’ of their day, each seeking truth by the light of his own inner consciousness. --- Muhammad, son of Abdullah, became one of these. --- End of quote.

He was employed by a wealthy widow, Khadijah, as a trader, and transacted the business so well, and so excellent was the report of his behavior, that he gained the name, Al-Amin, ‘the trustworthy.’ --- Though she was 15 years older than him, they were married. --- Khadijah was a Christian.

After Muhammad received the call, through the vision of Gabriel, he was reluctant to respond at first, but she encouraged him.
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 the messenger had come to Muhammad, and that he was chosen as the Prophet of his people."

So Muhammad had Christian influence, and there is no mention of how many times he might have visited this cousin.
--- The early biographers tell how his wife Khadijah “tried the spirit” which came to him and proved it to be good.
--- (She may have used this test, used by Christians in 1 John 4:
1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.")

Surah 19 was one of the first Surahs that was well known to the people because it happened about the fourth year of Muhammad’s teaching, when the small group of Muslims were persecuted severely in Mecca, so:
Quote: “The Prophet advised all who could possibly contrive to do so to emigrate to a Christian country, Abyssinia.” --- When the Negus (king) asked what they believed, the Prophet’s cousin, Ja’far ibn Abi Talib quoted the first part of Surah 19, which begins with the miraculous birth of John the Baptist, and the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

As for waraqa, I think we Shia tell it's story a bit differently.

 

There are lots of stories quoted by people that are merely one of many versions.

 

People rely on their sources blissfully unaware of the problems in the study of Islam,  

 

According to the version I am familiar with, Waraqa may have been a Christian but Lady Khadija was certainly not. 

Edited by baqar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Quote from Post 13:

He and his family were Hanifis

Your statement was true, but it doesn't give any details of what Muhammad believed before, so I quoted from the introduction to the Pickthall translation of the Quran that I have.

How many would know what 'Hanifis' believed from the name?

I am not sure if all Pickthall translations have the long introduction and history of Muhammad, but I have used this same information before on Shiachat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

HANIF

Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddin

"The word hanif (pl. hunafa) is derived from hanf, meaning an inclination in the forepart of the foot or inversion of the foot. A person having this distortion of the foot is called ahnaf. The singular word hanif occurs 10 times in the Koran (2:135, 3:67, 95; 4:125, 6:79, 161; 10:105, 16:120,123, 30:30), and the plural hunafa two times (22:31, 98:5). It occurs once as a synonym of muslim (3:67) and also in juxtaposition with the verb aslama (4:125). The exegetes of the Koran say that hanif in the age of ignorance signified an Arab adhering to the religion of Abraham and that title was also claimed by idolaters who only observed certain rites of that religion, such as pilgrimage to Mecca and circumcision. The verb tahannuf means pure exercise of religion in the pagan period.

The word hanif is used in the Koran to describe one who adheres to pristine monotheism. It is a descriptive name in the Koran for Abraham, and for those before Islam who by the purity and uprightness of their nature did not succumb to paganism and polytheism. The hunafa between Abraham and the time of the Prophet were thus the faithful representatives of the Abrahamic tradition during the age of ignorance.

The Koranic prototype of the ideal hanif is Abraham: "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, rather he was a hanif" (3:67). Thus, the hanifiyah was the faith of Abraham. Hanif is therefore one inclining to a right state or tendency. The word is often mentioned in connection not only with the name of Abraham, but the Prophet and his followers are also enjoined to be hanif. It seems to signify firmness in sticking to the right state, and has reference to the inclining to error on the part of both the Jews and the Christians: "Say: Nay (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the hanif (upright), and he was not one of the polytheists" (2:135), "And who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely to God? And he is the doer of good and follows the faith of Abraham, the upright (hanif), and God took Abraham as a friend" (4:125), "Surely Abraham was an exemplar, obedient to God, upright (hanif), and he was not of the polytheists" (16:120), and "Say: God has spoken the truth, therefore follow the religion of Abraham, the upright (hanif), and he was not one of the polytheists" (3:95). The Koranic Prophet too, is required to become a hanif by setting his face upright towards the true religion (10:105), and the same demand is also imposed on the rest of the people (22:31, 98:5).

Among the famous seekers of the Abrahamic hanifi religion, who are said to have lived in pre-Islamic Mecca were Waraqa bin Naufal, Ubaidulla bin Jahsh, Uthman bin al-Huwayrith and Zaid bin Amr bin Nufayl, Umayya bin Abi Salt, Quss bin Sa'idah, etc.

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/10360

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Thank you, that is very informative. --- I see that Waraqa bin Naufal, was listed as a true follower of Abraham, ‘of the Abrahamic hanifi religion.’

The word ‘hanif’ is not in most English translations, but I see it in 2, most versions say:

Surah 3:67 Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

Also this is said about his faith in God:

2:130 And who turns away from the religion of Abraham but such as debase their souls with folly? Him We chose and rendered pure in this world: And he will be in the Hereafter in the ranks of the Righteous.

132 The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).

If Waraqa bin Naufal followed Abraham into the New Testament, --- because it said he ‘knew the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians,’ --- he would find this in Galatians (It said he received revelations from God from the Priest and King, Melchizedek in Genesis), and it says, ‘The Gospel was preached to him’ in this verse in Galatians 3:

6 Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Galatians and Paul are Romans.

Arabs in Arabia , a non Roman territory , did not follow the Roman church nor adopted the Roman bible. They had their own bible which was not influenced by the Herodians.

Paul isn't even mentioned in Islamic literature prior to Islamic Spain(As far as I'm aware).

Edited by Chaotic Muslem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answers given here are correct. I did a little study on Western Arabian history and yes Hanifiya, did exist but the numbers were low. Before Muhammad(S) there was another great truth searcher(forgot his name) who was neither a jew or christian but monotheistic Hanif. Despite the rise of paganism, Ibrahim had a significant presence in pre-islamic culture. The Kabah was of course one of the reason. Many northern yemeni tribes seem to have had him in their "legends". Now i dont know about Khadija but Muhammad(S) was definitely a hanufa.

I was thinking could prophet Shuaib and Salih have been Yemeni prophets. Considering the Quran mentions the destruction of their individual tribes, it could their towns were near the Yemeni ring of fire. I could be wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Quote from Post 26:

Galatians and Paul are Romans.

Arabs in Arabia , a non Roman territory , did not follow the Roman church nor adopted the Roman bible. They had their own bible which was not influenced by the Herodians.

Paul isn't even mentioned in Islamic literature prior to Islamic Spain(As far as I'm aware).

Response: --- Galatia was a district in Asia Minor where Paul and Barnabas had started a Church some years before.

Paul was a Jew from Tarsus in Silicia, Asia Minor. They were under Roman rule from about 100 BC.

Paul had never been to Rome and was more closely associated with the Greeks, and the Gentile Church they were from was in Antioch, Syria.

Paul Had been studying in Jerusalem under the leading Theologian Gamaliel, He was a devout Pharisee and perhaps had ambition to become a High Priest.

That is why he opposed the teaching of the Gospel and took the initiative to have Christians arrested and confined in prison to get them off the streets. ---The Jews had no authority to put anyone to death so had to turn them over to the jailers on some charge.

But Paul was miraculously converted and was no longer welcome in Jerusalem.

He had a vision of Jesus when he was in the Temple in Jerusalem and it is recounted in Acts 22:

17 “Now it happened, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance

18 and saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’

21 Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’”

--- (If you object to the thought of Paul receiving a message while in a trance, --- that was how Muhammad received all of his revelations, was it not?)

Paul and Barnabus had been starting Churches in Asia Minor, and what happened in the Galatian Church was that Jews had come in later and wanted to turn the people back to following the OT Law, --- which was not given to the Gentiles,

So Paul was really speaking for the benefit of the Jews in relating the history of Abraham from Genesis, and the promise that through him (Abraham) all the nations would be blessed.

The Roman Church, did not start until after 300 AD, so Paul had no connection with Rome when he wrote this letter to the Galatians about 56 AD.

In referring to a Roman Bible, you must mean the Catholic Bible that has extra Books in the OT, --- but the New Testaments all have the same Books.

Before the time of Muhammad in 600 AD, the New Testament had been translated from Greek into, Latin and Syriac about 150 AD, into Coptic about 200, Armenian about 400, and in subsequent years into, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Persian and Slavonic languages. --- So they had the New Testament in whatever languages they spoke.

As for Paul not being mentioned, --- None of the Apostles were mentioned in the Quran, --- Only Zecharias, the father of John the Baptist, then John and Jesus.

You don’t have to believe this if you don’t want to, I just relate what is written in the Scriptures --- (and in this case, making the connection through Waraqa bin Naufal, a follower of Abraham, as Christians are, --- because the promised was given, to be fulfilled in Christ.)

The fact is that Gabriel, in his revelation to Muhammad, confirmed that the ‘former Scriptures were true,' --- So I believe it from the Quran as well as it being written in the NT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Galatians and Paul are Romans.

Arabs in Arabia , a non Roman territory , did not follow the Roman church nor adopted the Roman bible. They had their own bible which was not influenced by the Herodians.

Paul isn't even mentioned in Islamic literature prior to Islamic Spain(As far as I'm aware).

 

Hi Chaotic!

 

I can tell you right now that we follow both Peter and Paul, which are the leaders of the Roman church.

Peter visited modern day Iraq and gave his blessing to the churches. 1 Peter 5:13

 

The Pesheta is a Nestorian text, and many churches in Sham and the Arabian Peninsula were Nestorian or part of the Western (Catholic and Orthodox) Church.

The Nestorian church stretched from Syria to Japan, so it covers a lot of ground.

The earliest versions of the Pesheta (khubarus codex) we have already has Paul in it. If you follow the link you'll see on Romans 1:1

ܦܘܠܘܤ ܥܒܕܐ ܕܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ

Paulus, 3bda-d-Yesho3 Meshikha

Paul,  the servant of Jesus Christ.

 

The Church of the East's bishops (Assyrians) commonly make their names Paulus. An example is the Bishop Paulus Benyamin or Paul Benjamin.

Contrary to what you posted, Paul has a rich history within the Church of the East, and is certainly accepted as an apostle of Jesus.

Edited by salamtek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic!

 

I can tell you right now that we follow both Peter and Paul, which are the leaders of the Roman church.

Peter visited modern day Iraq and gave his blessing to the churches. 1 Peter 5:13

 

The Pesheta is a Nestorian text, and many churches in Sham and the Arabian Peninsula were Nestorian or part of the Western (Catholic and Orthodox) Church.

The Nestorian church stretched from Syria to Japan, so it covers a lot of ground.

The earliest versions of the Pesheta (khubarus codex) we have already has Paul in it. If you follow the link you'll see on Romans 1:1

 

The Church of the East's bishops (Assyrians) commonly make their names Paulus. An example is the Bishop Paulus Benyamin or Paul Benjamin.

Contrary to what you posted, Paul has a rich history within the Church of the East, and is certainly accepted as an apostle of Jesus.

Hi there,

I have nothing against Paul in particular, which is why I mentioned the Herodians as well. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John are all equally against the Quran.

Placid hinted that prophet got some education from Christian men. He brought Paul as an example of a source of teaching. I pointed to the fact that prophet was a dressing Christians of Arabia, yemenites and those in Yathrib. In the Israelite literature (narrations by ex Christians and ex jews converts) we find little mention of Paul or mention him but put less significance. A good example is the biography of Paul narrated by wahab bin manbeh

قال وهب بن منبه: كان بولس من رؤساء اليهود وأشدهم بأساً، وأعظمهم شأناً في إنكار ما جاء به المسيح عليه السلام ودفعه، ودفع الناس عنه.

فجمع العساكر وسار إلى المسيح عليه السلام ليقتله ويمنعه عن دخول دمشق، فلقيه بكوكبا فضربه ملك بجناحه، فأعماه، ورأى من دلائل أمره والأحوال التي لم يصل معها إلى ما أراد من مكروهه ما اضطره إلى الإيمان به، والتصديق بما جاء به، فأتى المسيح على ذلك، وسأله أن يفتح عينيه فقال له المسيح: كم تسعى في أذاي وأذى من هو معي، وتفعل وتصنع.

ثم قال له المسيح: امض حتى تدخل دمشق وخذ في السوق الطويل الممدود في وسط المدينة، يعني دمشق، حتى تصير في آخره وتصير إلى حنينا وكان حنينا قد اختفى منه فزعاً في مغارة نحو الباب الشرقي حتى يفتح عينينك.

فأتاه عند الكنيسة المصلبة وهي الكنيسة المنسوبة إليه اليوم، وكان بولس قد أخذ ابن أخيه، وكان قد آمن بالمسيح فحلق وسط رأسه ونادى عليه ورحمه حتى مات، فمن ثم أخذ النصارى حلق وسط رؤوسهم للتأسي بذلك، فيما كان عوقب به، وإنه كالتواضع لا كالعيب لمن آمن بالمسيح عليه السلام

So they did not view him as a pillar but a mere folower. His story reminds me of the story of sunni Mahdi. A faulty man who will be guided over a night then turns missionary.

It is also worth noting to mention that Quran went against the herodian narrative . Quran said that Jesus did not say that he is god. Quran also said that it is the claim of Christians that Jesus is son of God. Similarly, Quran said that it is the claim of Christians (not in injil nor said by Jesus ) that Christians are children of God.

And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return (of all).

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

Here is what I mean by herodian, somewhat reminds me of the effect of ummayad on the Islamic sunni canon. http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand something, and I'm a little confused...

 

In my discussions with Muslims over the years, I've been told that the Bible has been corrupted and cannot be trusted (even though no Muslim has been able to tell me when the Bible supposedly became corrupted).  I've also been told that Islam honors Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus as great prophets of God.  But here's my question -- before the Qur'an was revealed, what did Muhammad and those in his community know about Noah, Moses and Abraham, and where did they get their information about those prophets from?  Did they have their own historical records, or were they getting their knowledge from a corrupted Bible?  Or was the Bible correct 1,400 years ago in Muhammad's time, and only got corrupted after the Qur'an was revealed?  To word the question better, was the Bible ALREADY corrupted in Muhammad's time?  If so, the corruption (at least the corruption of the New Testament) would have to have occurred during the 600 years between the time of Jesus and the time of Muhammad.  And if the Old Testament had been corrupted in Jesus' time, He would have said so, but since He didn't, then both the OT and the NT would have to have suddenly become corrupted during the 600 years between Jesus and Muhammad (even though no corruption happened for thousands of years prior to that, and no corruption has occurred since then -- I find it amazing that the corruption could only have occurred in the time after Jesus, leading up to Muhammad!).  Is that the Muslim belief? 

 

Again though, the main question is, what did Muhammad know about Noah, Moses and Abraham prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and where did he get that knowledge from?  The corrupted Bible, or another source?

 

Peace,

The Rock   <><

 

(salam) SolidRock

 

The Prophet (pbuh) was incognizant of the previous scriptures and was astray / lost / in error before he got the scripture (Qur'an). 

"And He found you erring / in error / lost / astray (dall), so He guided" (93:7)Please note how the same Arabic word (dall) is used in Surah Fateha verse 7 as read by potentially billions of Muslims every day. They know very well its meaning in that verse yet oft fail to apply its meaning to verse 93:7.

 

Was the Original Injil lost?

'BETWEEN HIS HANDS' OR 'BEFORE IT' (MA BAYNA YADAYHI)

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

I read the long link, --- This article which was written by Robert Eisenman --- from:

'The Institute for Jewish-Christian Origins.' --- follows a lot of erroneous Talmud writings.

Quote from online: In the centuries following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), the Jewish people began writing in the 2nd century, two versions of Jewish thought, religious history and commentary. One was written in Palestine and became known as the Jerusalem Talmud. The other was written in Babylon and was known as the Babylonian Talmud.

It was written from the 2nd to about the 6th century. It is not Scripture and has its own agenda.

--- When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, all the records and genealogies were lost, so the Jews recorded their thoughts from other writings including some history from the Historian Josephus.

So the Talmud was compiled from the writings of Rabbis with an attempt to continue Judaism without the Temple, the sacrifices, and the Holy of Holies.

It is anti Christian so denied most everything about Jesus and the New Testament except to ridicule Him and the Apostle Paul, and others like him.

There are two quotes below from the article that ends by saying they have no proof or evidence, just their stories. --- They major on Paul being a Roman and not a Jew. --- (I will show some verses on how he was a Jew with Roman citizenship.)

Also, there is a story of one called Paulus (a name not in the NT) who started a riot in Jerusalem before 70 AD, about the time that James, the Pastor of the Jerusalem Church, was killed

This was years after Paul left Jerusalem, so there was no connection, and they say things about a supposed connection to king Herod, which has no basis in Scripture, and has not been heard of before.

Quote from link on Post 31,

In our view, it is just these Herodian origins where Paul is concerned that explain his very peculiar view of Judaism, what we perceive to be his inferiority complex and defensiveness where Jews are concerned, his jealousy of Jews, in fact his anti-Semitism generally, and finally his extremely lax and, from the Jewish viewpoint, utterly unconscionable view of the Law. It is hard to consider that a native-born Jew, comfortable in his identity, could have indulged in the kind of insults Paul gratuitously makes concerning circumcision, circumcisers, and those keeping dietary regulations, or adopted the curious approach towards the possibility of simultaneously being a Law-keeper to those who keep the Law and a Law-breaker to those who did not in order, as he puts it, "to win, not beat the air," or that by avoiding circumcision, one could avoid the demands of the Law, which in some manner he saw as "a curse."

Ending with

Quote: Though these matters are hardly capable of proof, and we have, in fact, proved nothing, still no other explanations better explain the combination of points we raise. One thing cannot be denied, Paul's Herodian connections make the manner of his sudden appearances and disappearances, his various miraculous escapes, his early power in Jerusalem, his Roman citizenship, his easy relations with kings and governors, and the venue and terms of his primary missionary activities comprehensible in a manner no other reconstruction even approaches.

They don’t write from having any spiritual knowledge, so they can’t understand that Paul was converted and was guided by the Holy Spirit of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

To respond to things said on the link.

Paul was born a Jew, in Tarsus, and was first introduced as Saul of Tarsus, with his Hebrew name,

About 100 BC the Roman Government had taken over the districts of Tarsus, Galatia, and others, so the children born had Roman citizenship by birth.
Saul was studying in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and no doubt had ambitions of becoming a high priest of the Pharisees.

After the rapid growth of Christians, following the Day of Pentecost, Saul was most anxious to oppose them and stop them from preaching, and the first mention of Saul was in Acts 7:
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him (the martyr, Stephen) with one accord;
58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep (in death).

--- Saul wasn’t involved in throwing stones, because as a Pharisee he knew the Jews had no authority to kill anyone, and he must not be involved in killing. --- But he could round up Christians and turn them over to the jailers and get them off the street.


So he had influence with the Sanhedrin and High Priest to give Saul some soldiers to go to Damascus to round up Christians, but this happened in Acts 9:
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.
4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

--- The Lord spoke to a Christian in Damascus, Ananias, to have him go and pray for Saul to receive his sight, because he had been blinded in the vision.
13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem.
14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, FOR HE IS A CHOSEN VESSEL OF MINE to bear My name BEFORE GENTILES, KINGS, and THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

And it was when he returned to Jerusalem and wanted to witness to the Pharisees and others that Christ was the Messiah, --- that it says in Acts 22:
18 And saw Him (Jesus) saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, for they will not receive your testimony concerning Me.’
21 Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’”

On another occasion when they were going to whip him:
25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?”
26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.”
27 Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?”
He said, “Yes.”
28 The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.”
And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.”
29 Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

So you see, nothing of what is mentioned in the article about Paul being a Herodian is true. --- And it was the Lord, through visions, that directed Paul in going to the Gentiles and before Kings.

If you don’t believe in visions, then I guess you wouldn’t believe in Mohammad’s vision of Gabriel.

Placid
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hi Chaotic Muslim,

Quote from link on Post 31:
It is hard to consider that a native-born Jew, comfortable in his identity, could have indulged in the kind of insults Paul gratuitously makes concerning circumcision, circumcisers, and those keeping dietary regulations,

Response: --- Each of the comments have to be with sarcasm, but the truth is that the writer doesn’t know what the Old Testament said about circumcision.
However, Paul was a student of the OT and this is why he could present the law with understanding.

Circumcision was a sign given to Abraham and it identified the Jews, so it was a regulation to be followed, along with the other Laws that God gave later to Moses. --- As soon as the Hebrew people started ignoring God’s law and even began to worship the idols of the Pagans around them, they lost their place with God. --- Therefore, circumcision did nothing to save them, did it?

--- After the Assyrian Captivity of Jews in 722 BC and a few years before the Babylonian captivity in 600 BC, the Prophet wrote this in Jeremiah 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The New Testament is the New Covenant.
--- While all the Jews were circumcised according to the law, including John the Baptist, Jesus, all the Apostles, and all the Jewish people. --- It was part of the law, and the law was set aside, when the preaching of the Gospel by John the Baptist and Jesus brought the Jews to “Faith in God” not as a nation, but as individuals.

And Jesus, who ministered to the Jews and prepared the Apostles to go out, gave them this commission in Mark 16:
15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;”

So Salvation was by Faith in God, --- and “Baptism” was the sign that replaced “circumcision.”

Jesus taught nothing about circumcision, and the word circumcision is not in the Quran, --- So Muhammad didn’t teach circumcision, did he?

But here is what the OT said about circumcision in Deuteronomy 30:
5 “He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.
6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”

This is in the Book of Moses, and it shows the inner conviction of the heart, to love God, with all your heart and all your soul (or your whole being).

It was in reference to this OT Scripture that Paul taught the same in Romans 2:
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision (of no significance)..
29 He is a (Spiritual) Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

And it says in 1 Corinthians 7:
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

Galatians 5:
6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”

Collosians 2:
11 “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”


In the same way, ‘baptism’ is of no benefit to unbelievers because we are saved by Faith in God, not by baptism.
Baptism is an outward sign of an inner conviction, --- but if there is no inner conviction then there is no significance to baptism either.

Placid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...