• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Islam Can Islam be distinguished from Arab I

Discussion in 'Debate Other Religions & Faiths' started by mindlight, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. JosephZ

    JosephZ Well-Known Member

    +725
    Philippines
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Others
    Some Muslims believe that the Gospel of Jesus is a Lost Book, some believe it was never written down, and others believe it represents the four gospels.

    The Injil (Singular) that is recognized in the Qur'an is the gospel that was sent directly down to Jesus, and in reading the Qur'an; it's easy to conclude that the Injil is not the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark found in the Bible as the following verses will show.

    We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous. -- Qur'an 5:46

    We sent in their wake Our messengers, and followed up with Jesus son of Mary, and We gave him the Gospel, and instilled in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy. -- Qur'an 57:27

    The gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark found in the Bible are historical accounts of Jesus and what He said during His earthly ministry. They didn't exist during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry and therefore can't possibly be the gospel (Injil) mentioned in the Qur'an that was sent down to Jesus.

    So that leaves two options; the Injil in written form has been lost, or it was never written down and only shared orally by Jesus. Either way, the Qur'an is not talking about the four gospels found in the New Testament.

    The term "People of the Book" refers to those who believe in the prophets and what was revealed to them them by Allah from the "Mother of Books", so even without the Injil being a physical book, since Christians believe in Moses and what is written in the Torah, they could be considered as people of the book in that sense, or if the Injil was once in written form and then lost, it could apply in that way also.
     
  2. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,592
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    The theology of the bible allows for that definition of global appeal having a non Jewish writer in Luke, being written in 3 languages on 3 continents and over 1500 years of human history by 40 different witnesses. It's content referring to gentiles with messages of hope for people's of all nations e.g the Assyrians in Jonah.

    The Qur'an is only one context, one time , one witness, one language and is just Arabian.
     
  3. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,592
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    This is plain wrong for four main reasons.

    1) How God reveals himself in history is not just spouting a bunch of words at people but through acts of power in human history. Moses was given the law during the Exodus after 10 plagues had humbled the greatest nation on earth, while a whole people were being fed by supernatural means in the desert. Jesus, performed acts of power , as the Qur'an admits showing that what he said was true. Muhammad's "revelation" was accompanied by no acts of Gods power but rather only the power of the human sword.

    2) The gospels were written down by direct witnesses to what Jesus said and did. They refer to a living pool of witnesses, many of whom were still alive at the time of writing and could confirm the story. With the Qur'an we have to accept the word of one man that he heard an angel while sitting in a cave alone in the heat of the desert.

    3) The revelation in the Gospels can be integrated with what came before it. Previous prophets documented before the life of Jesus had their words fulfilled in his life and ministry. The Qur'an is a standalone text with no continuity with what came before it quoting from dubious and rejected Christian literature like the "gospel of Thomas" or sharing distorted versions of actual bible stories.

    4) What God truly reveals He does not lose. He inspired a pool of witnesses to record His actions and words in real human history. To suggest that Jews and Christians were unable to preserve Gods message is an insult to God and denies the physical evidence of a solid textual tradition.
     
  4. spirito

    spirito New Member

    14
    +3
    Italy
    Atheist
    Single
    So I proved you wrong on all your points. You didn't show any evidence for your claim that I lied, yet I am losing the argument. Must be nice to live in your fantasy world.


    The context shows that it is talking about the trinity.

    No, because the evidence shows it. I gave it to you, from the official islamic sources and you just ignored it. Yet you presented nothing that sustains your point of view. You are just an ignorant who wants to remain ignorant. You throw away new information that debunks your claims and just keep repeating the same old lies. So what's the point of talking to you if you are acting like a wall?
     
  5. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    The Qur'an is for all times and had tons of witnesses and it in itself is a miracle which anyone can recognise if they study it.

    Despite the difficulty in tanslating the Qur'an its meaning has been translated into English for instance and is therefore available for a much wider audience.
     
  6. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    So I take it what you're objecting to is that the Gospels don't have much truth within them, but what I was trying to explain is why the Christians are considered the people of the book.

    So long as you see what the Qur'an means when it speaks of the Gospel.
     
  7. dzheremi

    dzheremi Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

    +7,284
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    Yeah, this was my point of asking that. It's clear that the Qur'an assumes that we had something of a book. You are the only Muslim I have ever seen who claim it was never a written text. Most seem to say that it was written, but corrupted or lost over the years.

    This seems like one of those things that Muslims like to say based on the Qur'an, but can't back up in any meaningful way. Like when the Qur'an says that there was disagreement among people over whether or not Jesus had been crucified, so you ask Muslims what people, where, and when, and they can't give you any detail. It's pretty funny, because Bart Ehrman, one of the western scholars of the NT who is very popular for Muslims to cite online because of his talks about the corruption of the Gospel texts, has called the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans "one of the most secure facts we have about his life." (source) And he is an atheist!

    Why is this necessary for Christians to do but not necessary for Muslims to do? The Qur'an (in the sense of the physical book that you have right now) was not prepared until after Muhammad's death, and yet you still trust in its preservation despite evidence that it too went through an evolution the same as any other religion's holy book did.

    Okay. Earlier in post #111, you seemed to be contrasting the Gospel as given to Jesus with "the book" given to Moses, so this is a little strange. Now they were both given "the book". Does the Qur'an assume the Torah and whatever content was given to Jesus to be the same? Because obviously it would not make sense to call what Moses was given a/the "Gospel", as that term refers specifically to the Christian message (whether written down or not).
     
  8. dzheremi

    dzheremi Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

    +7,284
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    How many were not companions or close relations of Muhammad? Were there any? I'm just curious whether the Qur'an faces similar problems as its spiritual child, The Book of Mormon, in claiming its "witnesses".

    I've studied it here and there and know many more who have studied it (including native Arabic speakers), and we all came to the same conclusion that it is not a miracle. I think the standard for what is a miracle seems to be different in Islam, though. I don't know how you guys would define it religiously, but generally speaking in common English something is a miracle if it is not explainable by natural or scientific laws. I'm not aware what law there is that says a book can't exist.

    This has always struck me as a bit of a cop-out, like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Islam is the religion for all mankind, but if you produce what is clearly a translation of its main religious text, you ought not call it a translation in such a way that implies that this is the text itself taken from the original language and rendered in another. Be sure to specify that it is "the meaning of" or "an interpretation of" the original Arabic text, because...somehow that's different than a translation...since we must keep the Qur'an in its revealed Arabic.

    But Islam is not a religion just for Arabs! :scratch:
     
  9. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,592
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    Actually it is quite dated and while there are some beautiful passages there are significant errors that call the whole text into question. Fundamentally there is only one witness to the key facts of the revelation and we are asked to trust Muhammad on what he says. The Christian notion of witness allows for a much greater pool of people to verify what was said or done. Also as I said it is not just words but God at work in history in power. Muhammad performed no miracles and the Quran is not a miracle if full of errors.

    It communicates 7th century Arab values to a global audience in a variety of languages but that is not a revelation with the kind of contextual flexibility that Christians have and have tested over a much longer period in a much greater variety of settings. The Quran is an Arab book from a time long past.
     
  10. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    What evidence and what kind of evolution?

    Because the Qu'ran has been recited since it was revealed. It has ensured and continues to ensure in its on way that the message cannot be lost and the Qur'an cannot be changed without it being noticed. Even now there are thousands of Muslims in single cities who can recite the entire Qur'an by heart. Similarly before the Qur'an was compiled there were people who could recite the whole Qur'an.
    Actually all the revelation forms one book. So in a way they are the same book. But the Gospel was revealed after the Torah so naturally Moses received the Torah and not the Gospel. As mentioned several times in the Qur'an Jesus was also taught the Torah. The Qur'an says both Jesus and Moses were given 'the book', as were Abraham and David.
     
  11. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,592
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    The Quran refers to the bible. There is no other text in the context that fits the bill. But Muhammad was an illiterate and had never read it nor apparently even ever heard it read. So his comments about the bible are embarrassingly wrong , his recollection of bible stories is distorted or from heretical texts. Basically he is lying but he does not know enough to even pull that off.

    Subsequently Muslims became aware of the gap between what Muhammad said and the reality in the bible itself and then they had to rationalise a bunch of explanations for the credibility gap.
     
  12. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    The companions of the prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), the Sahabah, were all the people who were in direct contact with the prophet and believed in his message
    So there were a lot of people who witnessed the revelations being sent, The prophet's (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) life, the wars, the miracles, his sincerity and righteousness.
    The Qur'an isn't something one studies 'here and there'.
    I think I've said it before that this is a 'problem' with the Arabic language being too rich to be translated to something like English - or possibly into any language. If you have a hard time believing that I suggest you contact someone who is a professional in linguistics and familiar with the Arabic language.

    Besides that the Qur'an was literally revealed in Arabic. You can't change the revelation. If the language cannot be translated adequetly you cannot make an adequate translation out of it.
     
  13. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    So you don't get it still. Let's put it this way, was the Bible given to Jesus?

    If Muslims had become aware of such later, how come the Qur'an speaks of it? Or are you proposing the Qur'an has been changed for the sake of correlating with Christianity?
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  14. dzheremi

    dzheremi Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

    +7,284
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    There are minor textual variations found in the Sana'a manuscript, according to both its primary archivist Gerard Puin and to Asma Hilali, who published a critical edition on it in 2017. In addition, non-Muslim witnesses to the Qur'an as it was known in their day like John of Damascus (d. 749) show that at that time it still contained variation from the now 'standard' text.

    This perhaps fits with the apparently missing verse prescribing stoning for adulterers testified to in Sahih Muslim, or the "canceled" verse mentioned in Al-Bukhari, as here and here.

    Of course, no Muslim is going to accept these as evolution, but outside of the theological concerns of Muslims, this is what anyone would recognize as an evolution. I suspect it is what Muslims would claim as "corruption" if mentioned about any other religion's text.

    The same is true of the Bible, both the Jewish and Christian versions. In the Eastern Christian churches such as my own and that of the Byzantine Greeks, recitation of the Biblical text is the only way we read the Bible liturgically, and it has been so since long before the arrival of Muhammad. The primary text established for the forms of chant in the Syriac Orthodox Church, for instance, dates from the 4th century AD.

    How does it ensure that? Because again, that's exactly what we have been doing since long before your prophet was even alive, and yet your religion claims that our holy book is corrupted.

    And again, so can thousands of Christians with the Bible, particularly the Psalms (as these form the basis of much of our daily prayer in the Orthodox Church). In fact, in the Coptic Orthodox tradition in particular, there has for centuries been a preference for blind cantors over the sighted, because it is believed that their blindness enhances their hearing, and hence their ability to produce the fine modulations that are characteristic of Coptic chant. This sort of thing, combined with the lower of levels of literacy in the traditional homelands of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia, etc. means that there are many who have no choice but to memorize.

    Well then it's the Quran's responsibility to substantiate what it says, instead of this "They were given X, but then X went away", or "they were given X, but X was never written down" kind of conspiracy theory. We know what the Torah and the Gospel are, in terms of their existence as written texts. As with the crucifixion of Christ, the Qur'an presumes controversy for its own theological purposes, but there isn't any.
     
  15. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,592
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    I understand your view that a series of 6 major prophets received revelations and that you consider Jesus to be just one of these. But that model is just trying to force the Muslim model onto a reality that was actually very different and is not even true to what Muhammad in his ignorance meant in the Quran. The New Testament was written down 6 centuries before Islam and by the time of Muhammad it was totally clear what a Christian was and what revelation they followed and also what texts a Jew held to be authoritative. You still do not understand what real revelation is. It is not just words spouted off by a guy who says an angel gave them to him but no one else can verify his story. It is God at work in history, in acts of power and miracles and it is the inspiration to understand what God is doing and why. There is a large pool of witnesses to Gods work in history many of whom Muhammad directly affirms in his book but their witness contradicts what Muhammad says

    The Quran speaks of books which Muhammad had never read nor understood. His references there reflect his own ignorance and desire to be affirmed as one on a par with the prophets of the bible stories. But the job of understanding the problem the Muslims were in when they finally read the bible for themselves was a job for later Muslims than Muhammad. I actually feel sorry for Muhammad, no one explained to him who Jesus was until it was too late for him to accept and he was already blinkered by the bubble of consciousness that he had built for himself and his followers. He lived in a dark cloud that just kept growing until it engulfed much of the world. The light has never stopped shining and it is there in scripture to be read by those with eyes to read it, but some people prefer darkness to the light.
     
  16. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    How do you suppose?
    Such as? Anything unrelated to the bible?
    You ignore the sahabah?
    Would that be different from you trusting Jesus on what he says?
    List them.
     
  17. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    The sana'a manuscript did not represent an official piece. Parts of it, the researchers concluded, were written most likely by a student.
    Never heard of that, where can I see evidence of this idea having existed? I hope this isn't one of those 'they added marks over the letters to signify certain pronunciation'.
    There is neither a missing verse, a cancelled verse nor any evidence toward either of them.

    How prevalent was it that people could recite the whole of it by heart? The main problem is of course that the new testament was written after Jesus had already died, not to mention that he left no particular 'revelation' to be recited. So you would be mostly reciting the words of the person who wrote the story.
    I've never heard of a Christian who knows the Bible by heart. I wish you could show me proof of it.
    I don't understand. It is so clear.
    Well don't keep it a secret.
     
  18. dzheremi

    dzheremi Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

    +7,284
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    This is a nonsense statement. So what if it's not an "official piece"? As far as I've been able to find, it is perhaps the earliest surviving manuscript evidence that we have of the Qur'an. This would be like saying that the Bodmer Papyri or some other incredibly important early Biblical materials don't matter for the study of the NT because they're not the Textus Receptus. No serious academic would take such a ridiculous stance seriously.

    It is in John of Damascus' writings. An Eastern Orthodox person could probably explain it better to you, since they would know him better. If I recall correctly, he wrote about the "heresy of the Ishmaelites", as it was called, in some part of his Fount of All Knowledge. It mentions material that was apparently known in his time as being part of the Qur'an that is not there now. (Not anything about the markings. John was possibly of Arab origins himself, and either way it is likely that he was conversant in Arabic, since he worked in administration of the city before being retired to a monastery once the Arabs had ensured that Muslim administrators could replace him; his grandfather, Mansour Ibn Sarjun, was likely involved in the handover of Damascus to the Arabs, and there is speculation that he may have belonged to the Banu Kalb or Banu Taghlib, though nothing is for sure.)

    So Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim don't count for anything? :scratch: That's very strange, and very unlike other Sunni Muslims I have spoken to or corresponded with.

    Neither of these things are actual problems. Again, the Qur'an was compiled after Muhammad's death, and you don't seem to have any problem with that. You simply have a different standard for other religions, which your own does not even meet.

    The reciting of the Qur'an is the reciting of the words of the person or people who wrote the story, so y'know, same difference, except that we don't claim that our Holy Bible is the literal dictated speech of God in the first place.

    This actually seems to be something of a challenge among certain types of Evangelical Protestants (putting "memorize the New Testament" into Google leads to many pages with tips and benefits of doing so), though I don't know if any of them have actually done so. I think it's more common in those types of churches to have a "read the Bible in X amount of time" idea, as a kind of replacement for the liturgical calendars of more traditional churches.

    In the more traditional churches, though, the cycle of readings follows the liturgical calendar, such that if you go through the liturgical year you will eventually cover everything (though there are different rules in different churches regarding what exactly is read when, i.e., some churches apparently don't read the Revelation of St. John aloud; mine does, for Bright Saturday of the Holy Week services). This is probably part of the reason why we don't have things like hafiz as a kind of distinction you can attain: it's not really traditionally seen as something to do on an individual level, since everyone will learn the entire thing if they just keep going to church. It is similar to how most monks learn the Psalms: by repetition of their daily offices -- not in isolation from them with memorization as a goal in itself.

    Though since I have been to a Coptic monastery, I have met a few people who knew the Psalms by heart. I would say that most Coptic people, if they are steadfast in their prayers, can all learn them all insofar as they pertain to the Agpeya (the book of hourly prayers, from which we are to pray seven times a day) in a matter of a few weeks to months, depending on their aptitude at retaining things.

    It is important to realize in all this the crucial divide between Christianity and Islam: in Christianity, the importance has historically been on the learning of the liturgy through which the Bible is preached and taught, while in Islam apparently the importance is put on learning the text itself. Those are not the same thing.

    If it were really so clear you presumably wouldn't need contradicting explanations depending on what challenge was put to your idea.

    It's not, and never has been. The Gospels are the four given to our fathers and masters the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, while the Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known collectively as the Pentateuch.
     
  19. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    Then from your point of view a false prophet in his false revelation said something but meant something else which he nor anyone around him knew what he really meant, but you know. So now you're the prophet.
    You're not being logical. You claim that I don't know what revelation is because I say the words Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) received were revelation, but I'm quite sure you don't mean words can't be revelation by themselves. What you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is the words he said he received were not revelation because you don't believe he was a prophet. So your problem doesn't appear to have anything to do with the words, but with the prophet. You're trying to make it seem logical by referring to 'just words not being revelation'.

    Why does the Qur'an keep saying Jesus was given the book if the book was the Bible? Actually if the entire revelation is not revelation to you, why would you insist it must be about the Bible?
     
  20. Yytz6

    Yytz6 Member

    228
    +18
    France
    Muslim
    Private
    So it was not an actual copy of the Qur'an or parts of it. Some of it was most likely a student's work which explains the errors and the over writing. The manuscript and the research regarding it was welcomed by all Islamic scholars. Nor has any of them been the least apologetic after the results have been published to the whole world because above everything else the manuscript verifies the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly.
    It's not that, but you have to take into account everything: the reliability, the context, interpretation, wording in Arabic and of course other hadiths. In the end there is no indication there that the Qur'an was missing a verse or that there had been a verse cancelled.
    The reason I brought up the recitation matter is that it ensures the preservation of the message from the very beginning. If the recitation began later after the prophet was dead, what guarantee would it have given it?
    No, the Qur'an is the word of God from the first word to the last.
    Where did you get that idea?

    The Qur'an being the word of God it is important to recite it exactly as it is, otherwise the message would not remain the same. The Qur'an is also read from memory during each prayer. Not just certain parts of the Qur'an, but any surah in the Qur'an can be recited. The more you remember the better.
    You said it's the Qur'an's responsibility to substantiate what it says. It does. And I didn't understand what the rest of it meant. I assume you were making a point regarding something in the Qur'an.

    It seems you are confused about it, whatever it is, but that doesn't mean it is not true or is incomprehensible. It means you have to learn to understand it better.

    Where have I been contradictory?
    But the Qur'an doesn't mention the Gospels but the Gospel. And again the same issue occurs - were the four Gospels given to Jesus?
     
Loading...