The Scriptures that are with them...

[Fivesolas]

" Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful." Surah 7:157 (Pickthal)

I looked at the translation from Shakir and Yusufali as well:

"YUSUFALI: "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel"

"SHAKIR: Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel"

The subject of this text is clear: it is claiming that Mohammed is written about/prophesied in the Old and New Testaments. What is interesting here is that this verse is telling us also that the Torah and the Gospel was with them, in their own Scriptures.

Since this verse is alleging that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures speak of Mohammed, which at that the time they had, then how is it that it can also be alleged that Old and New Testaments have been corrupted?

Doesn't it follow then that what they had was not corrupted at the time of Mohammed?

I have been looking at several passages from the Qur'an with regard to how it describes the Old and New Testaments. Here are some of the Surahs I have been looking at: Surah 5:47-51, 5:71-72, 5:16, 7:169, 29:45, 10:37, 46:11, 6:91, 35:31, 2:40-42.

I am finding the Qur'an in reference to the Bible to be quite favorable. If there is any of this alleged corruption, then it is not to be found to be said so in the pages of the Qur'an. The Qur'an, rather, seems to affirm the Law, Psalms, and the Gospel (Old and New Testaments).

I don't know a single Muslim who would suggest for a moment that God's Word can be altered or changed. In fact, this is often evidence presented in support of the Qur'an being the Word of God. But the Qur'an tells me that the Old and New Testaments are revelations sent down by God. Here is a simple logical syllogism:

1. God's Word cannot be altered, changed, or corrupted.
2. The Qur'an shows that the Old and New Testaments are God's Word.
3. Therefore the Old and New Testaments cannot be corrupted.

If I have come away with any understanding from the Qur'an concerning previous revelation/Scriptures, it is that they are trustworthy.


-fivesolas

[- Qatada -]

A few points;


God gave scripture to Previous Nations, including the Jews (which included the followers of Moses and Jesus). He made them responsible for preserving it's content, and teaching it to their people. But He did not promise to preserve it in it's entirety.


Furthermore, God tells us about the error they fell into, when He says [meaning];

They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Quran 5:13)

I.e. they would take a word out of context, and convey the distorted meaning to the people (due to many factors; including out of fear of Oppressive Governments etc). Which distorted the message. Furthermore, they forgot a part of the revelation which was given to them.



In regard to the followers of Prophet Muhammad; God promised to preserve the scripture revealed to them - however, that was because He wanted the believers to spread it's teachings to the rest of mankind.

Proof:

Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We [God] will be its guardian. [Quran 15:9]

Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death." So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided. [Quran 7:158]

So Jews (followers of Moses till the time of Jesus) who had only the duty of Preserving their scripture - altered parts of it, due to external pressures. They were not ordered by God to convey it to the rest of mankind.

The followers of Prophet Muhammad had God promise to preserve the Scripture [Qur'an and Prophetic Guidance (Sunnah)], however - they would have to convey it to the rest of mankind.

[Fivesolas]

Qatada,

I am not aware of any religious tradition that doesn't have people who have twisted the meaning of their Scriptures. This, however, does not mean they intentially altered their writings that they held sacred. And, according to the Qur'an, there were those among them who did not distort the words, i.e. misinterpret them. There is a huge difference between alterting the Scriptures and misinterpreting them. Nor is the Surah your quoting saying they did. LIke you commented, it is saying they would take a word out of context, misinterpret, or forgot parts of it.

The evidence I have provided from the Qur'an suggests to me, and I think any honest reader, that at MINIMUM, the written Scritpures existing at the time of Mohammed, both Old and New Testaments, were uncorrupted. Yes, the Qur'an charges both Christians and Jews with error, but it appeals to them not to turn to the Qur'an, but to their own Scriptures. Honestly, does this make any sense at all if what they had in their hands they themselves had corrupted or altered?

THis was my main point. When I look at the Qur'an's testimony concernign previous revelation I find nothing but good spoken of it. I do not find any indication that the text was alterted, but rather the contrary, that Christians and Jews were exhorted to search their own texts. They are told they would find a confirmation of everything written in their books and even find prophesies of Mohammed.

If there is any valid argument the Muslim can make concerning the Bible, it seems to me it has to made post 7th century, and admitted that pre-7th century Scripture was uncorrupted based on the testimony of the Qur'an. The Muslim can't argue for the corruption of the biblical text pre-7th century. This is understandably problematic in light of the fact that we have manuscripts that pre-date the time of Mohammed.

[SalamChristian]

there were those among them who did not distort the words, i.e. misinterpret them.

good point.

the written Scriptures existing at the time of Mohammed, both Old and New Testaments, were uncorrupted.

also a good point, but you might be going too far here. I like your earlier point more. Some people corrupt the truth, some hold faithful to it, and it follows that those who hold faithful to the truth will have truthful scriptures. As well, it follows that the Christians which Allah (swt) describes as holding to their faith in the Qu'ran must have also had truthful holy books.

A problem I see is the certainty among some that the Christian holy book we have today is false. You don't know if we are descendants of the truthful Christians of Muhammad's time or if we are descendants of the false ones, so why judge so quickly?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[SalamChristian]

If there is any valid argument the Muslim can make concerning the Bible, it seems to me it has to made post 7th century, and admitted that pre-7th century Scripture was uncorrupted based on the testimony of the Qur'an. The Muslim can't argue for the corruption of the biblical text pre-7th century.

Hmm. Do you know if any of the gnostic gospels were floating around in the 7th century still? I would not at all be surprised if they were. Gnosticism had a bigger hold on the eastern Christian world, in Egypt and elsewhere, from what I have read. There was a tradition during early Christianity of Christians with unpopular interpretations moving to Egypt/Jerusalem/eastern areas to escape persecution of the established church. Athanasius did it, and from what I have read he was among many others who did as well. That was in the 4th century. Some of the "Christian" beliefs (such as Mary as the holy spirit) criticized in the Qu'ran sound kinda strange and gnostic to me, but I might be wrong.

[Fivesolas]

good point.



also a good point, but you might be going too far here. I like your earlier point more. Some people corrupt the truth, some hold faithful to it, and it follows that those who hold faithful to the truth will have truthful scriptures. As well, it follows that the Christians which Allah (swt) describes as holding to their faith in the Qu'ran must have also had truthful holy books.

A problem I see is the certainty among some that the Christian holy book we have today is false. You don't know if we are descendants of the truthful Christians of Muhammad's time or if we are descendants of the false ones, so why judge so quickly?

SalamChristian,

I don't think I am going too far, but let me explain why. I think (I could be wrong, and am glad to be shown if I am) I am reasoning from the Qur'an. Now, I do not accept the Qur'an as Scripture, but that is beside the point. When I look at the text of the Qur'an and see what it says and how it reasons concerning previous revelation, I am left with the understanding that what the Jews and Christians had in the time of Mohammed, 7th century, was uncorrupted. The reason I conclude this is because the Qur'an exhorts the Christians and Jews to look at their own Scriptures, what is in their hands. I cannot imagine God telling them to do this if what they held in their hands was corrupted with or without their knowledge. God knows.

Nor does it seem reasonable to me to suppose that what they had was gnostical writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Why? Well, a reading of the Gospel of Thomas would lead any Muslim to that conclusion....You would have Allah attesting to the truthfulness of that writing...

The question(s) then that should be raised are what books did the Christians have? Our Greek MSS pre-date the Islamic period and post-date them as well. With a large degree of certainty we can know these things. Without a long discussion here regarding textual criticism, even looking at the varient readings between all known existing MSS, young and old, there is overwhelming substantial agreement. What does this mean? It means that what we have in our hands today is what they had in their hands.

The only other place I can imagine someone going would be to some "other" MSS out there yet undiscovered. This, of course, would be conjecture and an argument from silence.

[Fivesolas]

Hmm. Do you know if any of the gnostic gospels were floating around in the 7th century still? I would not at all be surprised if they were. Gnosticism had a bigger hold on the eastern Christian world, in Egypt and elsewhere, from what I have read. There was a tradition during early Christianity of Christians with unpopular interpretations moving to Egypt/Jerusalem/eastern areas to escape persecution of the established church. Athanasius did it, and from what I have read he was among many others who did as well. That was in the 4th century. Some of the "Christian" beliefs (such as Mary as the holy spirit) criticized in the Qu'ran sound kinda strange and gnostic to me, but I might be wrong.

I am still trying to find a solid source for the history of Christianity in 7th century Arabia. I found some substantial treatment of this, but it was unsourced. Based on the Qur'an's account of Jesus making and clay bird and giving it life, is evidence in my mind that gnosticism had influence in Arabia and was the "Christianity" that Mohammed encountered. Had it been Athanasius that was exiled to Arabia, it would have been a very different impression. After all, it is Athanasius' "list" that he sent in a festal letter to the churches that names all 27 books of the NT.

[SalamChristian]

Well, a reading of the Gospel of Thomas would lead any Muslim to that conclusion....You would have Allah attesting to the truthfulness of that writing...

Hmm. That's another good point. You might have convinced me that Muhammad did not encounter gnostics, pending further research. This is all very speculative, lol. Obviously most of us on the board haven't read gnostic gospels. I have only read lengthy summaries, but they really turned me off to them. Someday, of course, I hope to read them.

Maybe the Mary-as-holy-spirit heresy as well as the "third-among-three" criticism described in the Qu'ran was an instance of misinterpretation as well, as opposed to false holy books. I certainly don't believe that she is the holy spirit lol.

After all, it is Athanasius' "list" that he sent in a festal letter to the churches that names all 27 books of the NT.

who sent this letter? Athanasius sent it?

[Aprender]

Another thread like this again...

Read this from the link below. This Bible is ONLINE and you can even look at the Bible and read it for yourself and I want you to tell me if what you read there Bible is the exactly same Bible that we have in our hands today with our different translations and such.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/eu....bible.online/

The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.

Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.


The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And I encourage you to read the entire Qur'an. Not trying to make it support that the Bible you have today hasn't changed. Just read it.

There is a huge difference between alterting the Scriptures and misinterpreting them.

And what is that huge difference? I'm a journalist so let me give you an example as to how altering and misinterpreting something lead to the exact same end and that is not getting the truth.

If I were doing a breaking news story about something that happened right now and I got in touch with a reporter at the scene with 3 officers tied up in a room. He somehow got lose and got to his phone while the criminals stepped out for a bit and he tells me over the phone,"Authorities suspect more than 30,000 people are being held hostage in a football stadium. The guy who is leading this with 4 others in his crew has just shot a gun and lost it." Now let's say there was a phone glitch or I couldn't hear what the correspondent said and I repeat to him my story lede for clarification, "A downtown football stadium shut down today after a man upset about his sausage that he lost is holding an estimated 30,000 people in the stadium hostage." And the correspondent repeats to me, yes then I hear a gun shot and the line goes dead. Now already that sounds a little ridiculous to me but people have done stranger things for sillier reasons so I wrote up my story and send it to the wire immediately. Next thing you know CNN, Fox News, The LA Times and all of these other news stations pick up this wire story that I wrote alleging a man is holding people hostage over some sausages that he lost all because I misinterpreted what the correspondent said and the story is spreading like wildfire. Because of my misinterpretation, the true meaning of the story was altered and people aren't exactly getting the truth. The only person who knows what really happened is the reporter who was in the room with man and the 4 others shutting down access to the stadium and holding people hostage. Since it's likely that he got shot for being on the phone I really don't have anyone to confirm what I wrote at that point except the other tied up officers in the room or the 30,000 hostages and perhaps all of them might not really know the exact reason why the person is doing this...and even then, I can't get to them and now everyone is being told a lie.

This happens ALL the time in news and I don't see how the Bible can be exempt to how misinterpretation leads to altering. Either way, you don't get the truth. And this is why we have tens of thousands of sects of Christianity in America today and they all think they're right but really, which version of the story is it?

[SalamChristian]

I'm sorry, I mispoke. You HAVE convinced me that the Qu'ran is not referring to gnostic gospels when it exhorts Christians to look to their gospels. Hmm. I am wondering, now, however, if he did not encounter gnostics. Catholics obviously venerate Mary very highly. Martin Luther wrote in 1521:

"How can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace."

I just found this via a quick internet search. It comes from the "Explanation of the Magnificat" written in 1521. The veneration of Mary is not something that I come from in my religious tradition, though, and it is hard for me to wrap my mind around.

Salaam Alaikum

[SalamChristian]

Aprender,

Wow. How sure are you that is older than the Codex Vaticanus? I am looking these up now, and some sources are saying that the Codex Vaticanus is older.

Salaam

[Fivesolas]

Hmm. That's another good point. You might have convinced me that Muhammad did not encounter gnostics, pending further research. This is all very speculative, lol. Obviously most of us on the board haven't read gnostic gospels. I have only read lengthy summaries, but they really turned me off to them. Someday, of course, I hope to read them.

Maybe the Mary-as-holy-spirit heresy as well as the "third-among-three" criticism described in the Qu'ran was an instance of misinterpretation as well, as opposed to false holy books. I certainly don't believe that she is the holy spirit lol.



who sent this letter? Athanasius sent it?

The entire Hag Hammadi is available online. The Gospel of Thomas is a bit long, but available online. Some Muslims have remarked that Islam does not teach the Trinity to be God, Jesus and Mary. But I am not sure then of the meaning of the Surah I read. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that.

Athanasius did send a letter, the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, which contains a list of the 27 books of the NT we find in our Bibles today. There were a few extra-biblical writings that the Christians accepted for reading, but not as Scripture. These were the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, et. The letter mentioning our present canon dates to 367AD. He also enumerates the books of the OT. If you ever want to follow the development of the canon you could trace it as follows:

Ignatius of Antioch - 110AD - No list, but references to books in the NT canon, and nothing outside of it (i.e., aporcryphal)
Polycarp - 110AD - similar to Ignatius
Irenaeus - Cites books of the NT by name
Clement- citations
Tertullian - citiations
Muratorian Canon - 200-300AD -an 8th century mss was discovery in the library of Milan and published in 1740.

*some could be said about this discovery. It is quite facinating. It references the Apostle Paul making use of Luke's Gospel.. mentions how Luke omitted the crucifixtion of Peter and Paul's travel to Spain (these were omitted because they didn't not happen when Luke wrote the book of Acts). References are made to other books not counted in the present canon, some that are worth reading, but not publically or count among the prophets, and others that are to be rejected. Check it out.

This is enough to get anyone started on this history. Also look up Origen, Eusebius, the codex Sinaticus (now online), Didymus the Blind, the Pehsitta, and the Vulgate...this would run to you the end of 5th century.

[SalamChristian]

Whoa, Codex Sinaiticus was found at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt? I was just researching this monastery a couple weeks ago. It sits in the middle of nowhere, near some mines dug out by the Pharaohs ages ago. Some have speculated that Pharaoh Akhenaten's body, which has never been found, might actually be buried in those mines. There are also some very smart people who have argued that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hmm.

Apparently Saint Catherine's also owns a diplomatic letter sent by Mohammed (pbuh) making official peace with them and giving them his protection, and condemning any Muslims who attack Christians in good standing with Mohammed? I was just looking it up...it's called the "Patent of Mohammed". Have you heard about that?

[Fivesolas]

I'm sorry, I mispoke. You HAVE convinced me that the Qu'ran is not referring to gnostic gospels when it exhorts Christians to look to their gospels. Hmm. I am wondering, now, however, if he did not encounter gnostics. Catholics obviously venerate Mary very highly. Martin Luther wrote in 1521:

"How can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace."

I just found this via a quick internet search. It comes from the "Explanation of the Magnificat" written in 1521. The veneration of Mary is not something that I come from in my religious tradition, though, and it is hard for me to wrap my mind around.

Salaam Alaikum

I agree there is a dilemma here. If the Qur'an is affirming what was in the hand of the Jews and Christians, yet recounting a story that is found in a gnostical work, what is the explaination?

Concerning the veneration of Mary, where should our traditions come from? And what is tradition? Tradition, in the biblical sense, is teaching. And certinly we take actions on teaching, but it is teaching. Where in the apostolic tradition/teaching, i.e. the NT, is the veneration of Mary to any degree beyond calling her blessed among women?

I can't find anything like is seen in the papacy, orthodox churches, or early Reformed churches. We are bond to obey God rather than men.

[Fivesolas]

Whoa, Codex Sinaiticus was found at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt? I was just researching this monastery a couple weeks ago. It sits in the middle of nowhere, near some mines dug out by the Pharaohs ages ago. Some have speculated that Pharaoh Akhenaten's body, which has never been found, might actually be buried in those mines. There are also some very smart people who have argued that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Hmm.

Apparently Saint Catherine's also owns a diplomatic letter sent by Mohammed (pbuh) making official peace with them and giving them his protection, and condemning any Muslims who attack Christians in good standing with Mohammed? I was just looking it up...it's called the "Patent of Mohammed". Have you heard about that?

Never heard of the document until you mentioned it. Interesting....here is what hte monestary's website has:

According to the tradition preserved at Sinai, Mohammed both knew and visited the monastery and the Sinai fathers. The Koran makes mention of the Sinai holy sites. In the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, a delegation from Sinai requested a letter of protection from Mohammed. This was granted, and authorized by him when he placed his hand upon the document. In AD 1517, Sultan Selim I confirmed the monastery’s prerogatives, but took the original letter of protection for safekeeping to the royal treasury in Constantinople. At the same time, he gave the monastery certified copies of this document, each depicting the hand print of Mohammed in token of his having touched the original.

If this is true, then it would necessarily mean that it would be possbile for Mohammed to have seen the Codex Sinaiticus.

[SalamChristian]

If this is true, then it would necessarily mean that it would be possbile for Mohammed to have seen the Codex Sinaiticus.

Yeah, but Muhummad (pbuh) was illiterate. In any case, you could make a strong argument that Codex Sinaiticus is similar to/is the Biblical scripture that Muhummad (pbuh) refers to.

[SalamChristian]

Also, I started a thread on the "Patent of Muhammed" (pbuh) in the "Clarifications on Islam" section of the website. I posted a link there to a translation (though I am under the impression it is actually not a full translation). I am hoping that some of our Muslim brothers comment on the authenticity of the letter.

[Fivesolas]

Yeah, but Muhummad (pbuh) was illiterate. In any case, you could make a strong argument that Codex Sinaiticus is similar to/is the Biblical scripture that Muhummad (pbuh) refers to.

If that is the case, then it anyone can see the codex online and see that it contains all 27 books of the Bible. The question could/should be raised with regard to some of the apocryphal books and the extra-biblical Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Other ancient sources, such as the Muratorian Canon shed light on why the extra biblical letters are found here. It confirms that the early Christians did indeed make use of the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, et. But that they did not regard them as Scripture.

This fragment makes an observation I had never heard before. How Paul's letters are addressed to seven Churches like John's Revelation is addressed to seven Churches.

Consider also this part of the fragment:

"What marvel, therefore, if John so constantly brings forward particular [matters] also in his Epistles, saying of himself: [21] "What we have seen with our eyes and have heard with [our] ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you." [22] For thus he declares that he was not only an eyewitness and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order."

This is an extra-biblical attestation to 1 John 1:1 and a recognition that the eyewitnesses of Jesus also wrote these things.

[SalamChristian]

If that is the case, then it anyone can see the codex online and see that it contains all 27 books of the Bible. The question could/should be raised with regard to some of the apocryphal books and the extra-biblical Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Other ancient sources, such as the Muratorian Canon shed light on why the extra biblical letters are found here. It confirms that the early Christians did indeed make use of the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, et. But that they did not regard them as Scripture.

Also, there are some omissions in Sinaiticus, from what I have read, as well as some verses which Vaticanus doesn't have. I'm going to have to read Sinaiticus and these other epistles/books.

Consider also this part of the fragment:

what fragment? Where/who is this quote coming from?

[Fivesolas]

Also, there are some omissions in Sinaiticus, from what I have read, as well as some verses which Vaticanus doesn't have. I'm going to have to read Sinaiticus and these other epistles/books.




what fragment? Where/who is this quote coming from?

You would probably have a very hard time reading the Sinaiticus because of it being in Greek, unless you read Greek. Nevertheless, I am assuming that the translation online is just a translation of that one MSS. The Sinaiticus is part of the Critical Text, from which you find the NIV, NASB, ESV, et. For example, in the NIV you find the footnotes on the Gospel of Mark 16 "Older more reliable MSS do not contain these verses.." or something to that effect. This is the Critical Text camp. The KJV and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text, or Textus Receptus, but the NKJV includes all footnotes as to the variant readings.

If you want a fairly simplistic understanding/reading with being able to discern the varients, then get a NKJV. Between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus there are some 3,000 varients. Between all extant copies, and counting every single kind of variant, they are 85% identical. If we eliminate scribal varients, which are of no consquence, then the extant copies are more than 98% identical. So really, all the bally-hoo is over a few verses.

The fragment I was refering to is the Muratorian Canon. If you google it, you can find it online, intros about it, and several translations of it.

[- Qatada -]

Hi FiveSolas.


One of the strongest points of concern for me in regard to the Bible is the distortion of the texts when describing the Messengers' of God, who are supposed to be examples of high morals, and good conduct for the rest of mankind.


There are alot of evil things said about other Prophets' in the Bible.

Like claiming that Prophet Lot committed incest with his own daughters [see (Genesis 19:30-32)]. Or that Prophet Solomon worshipped idols. [see 1 Kings 11:4]



I do not believe that God would send Messengers' who would do the worst things on the planet, and act hypocritical in secret (i.e. the bible saying that Prophet Lot forbade homosexuality whilst the Bible claims that he committed incest with his own daughters.)


This just doesn't make sense, and such are the examples where I believe the Bible has been distorted.

[SalamChristian]

Prophet Solomon worshipped idols.

doesn't Solomon have to ask for forgiveness in the Qu'ran? What does he ask for forgiveness for? Doesn't Ibrahim also worship idols before asking for forgiveness in the Qu'ran?

[Ramadhan]

doesn't Solomon have to ask for forgiveness in the Qu'ran? What does he ask for forgiveness for?

It wasn't prophet Sulayman (pbuh) who asked for forgiveness as he had always been a muslim (submitting to God) since childhood and he had never disbelieved, it was queen Sheba:
So when she came, it was said (to her): "Is your throne like this?" She said: "(It is) as though it were the very same." And [Sulaiman (Solomon) said]: "Knowledge was bestowed on us before her, and we were submitted to Allah (in Islam as Muslims before her)." (QS. 27:42)
And that which she used to worship besides Allah has prevented her (from Islam), for she was of a disbelieving people. (QS. 27:43)
It was said to her: "Enter As-Sarh" [(a glass surface with water underneath it) or a palace], but when she saw it, she thought it was a pool, and she (tucked up her clothes) uncovering her legs, Sulaiman (Solomon) said: "Verily, it is Sarh [(a glass surface with water underneath it) or a palace] paved smooth with slab of glass." She said: "My Lord! Verily, I have wronged myself, and I submit (in Islam, together with Sulaiman (Solomon), to Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists)." (QS. 27:44)

Doesn't Ibrahim also worship idols before asking for forgiveness in the Qu'ran?

Again, incorrect. Allah SWT has bestowed upon Ibrahim (pbuh) the knowledge and Allah enlightened his heart and mind gave him wisdom from childhood. Allah the Almighty stated:
Indeed We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his (portion of) guidance, and We were Well Acquainted with him( as to his Belief in the Oneness of Allah etc). (Ch 21:51)

Ibrahim (pbuh) actually asked for forgiveness from Allah SWT for his father, who was a staunch idol-worshipper:
He (the father) said: "Do you reject my gods, O Abraham? If you stop not this, I will indeed stone you. So get away from me safely before I punish you." Abraham said: "Peace be on you! I will ask Forgiveness of my Lord for you. Verily! He is unto me, Ever Most Gracious. And I shall turn away from you and from those whom you invoke besides Allah." (Ch 19:43-48)

[Hiroshi]

doesn't Solomon have to ask for forgiveness in the Qu'ran? What does he ask for forgiveness for?

According to Al-Tabari concerning Surah 38:34 (Which says “We did try Sulaiman (Solomon) and We placed on his throne Jasad (a devil and he lost his kingdom for a while)”—Hilali and Khan), this verse refers to an incident where a demon took on Solomon’s appearance and replaced Solomon on his throne for a while, during which time the true king himself was treated as an outcast and a mad man. This was punishment upon Solomon for his making a statue in the form of the dead father of one of his wives, which she then idolized.

So in the next verse, Surah 38:35, Solomon is depicted as asking God for forgiveness for his involvement in idolatry.

[Hiroshi]

He (the father) said: "Do you reject my gods, O Abraham? If you stop not this, I will indeed stone you. So get away from me safely before I punish you."

This incident supposedly took place during Abraham's youth. It might be mentioned that the man was not called "Abraham" until he was 99 years old! Before that his name was Abram (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 17:5).

Surah 6:76-78 depicts Abraham saying: "This is my Lord" to a star, then to the moon and then to the sun, before turning instead to worship Allah.

[SalamChristian]

Cool! Thanks Hiroshi!

Peace brothers

[- Qatada -]

According to Al-Tabari concerning Surah 38:34 (Which says “We did try Sulaiman (Solomon) and We placed on his throne Jasad (a devil and he lost his kingdom for a while)”—Hilali and Khan), this verse refers to an incident where a demon took on Solomon’s appearance and replaced Solomon on his throne for a while, during which time the true king himself was treated as an outcast and a mad man. This was punishment upon Solomon for his making a statue in the form of the dead father of one of his wives, which she then idolized.

So in the next verse, Surah 38:35, Solomon is depicted as asking God for forgiveness for his involvement in idolatry.

Now that you've quoted al Tabari, maybe you can prove to me whether that story is authentic or not? Did you know that al-Tabari is a collection of recorded events, some true, and others false? And all he has done is merely collect them for later scholars to decipher their authenticity.

This incident supposedly took place during Abraham's youth. It might be mentioned that the man was not called "Abraham" until he was 99 years old! Before that his name was Abram (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 17:5).

That is a Christian concept. Abraham was always known as Ibraheem in the Qur'an.

Surah 6:76-78 depicts Abraham saying: "This is my Lord" to a star, then to the moon and then to the sun, before turning instead to worship Allah.

[/quote]


Abraham was giving Da'wah [invitation to Monotheism] to the people when he travelled, so when he passed by star/moon/sun/-worshippers, he would say what they say - then show the flaws in their beliefs.

It is like me saying to a Christian; "Oh, a man is my Lord", and then when the man dies, i say - "I do not worship a god who dies".


This enhances my view to others that God can only be a being who is Forever, Living, and never dies.

[SalamChristian]

Abraham was giving Da'wah [invitation to Monotheism] to the people when he travelled, so when he passed by star/moon/sun/-worshippers, he would say what they say - then show the flaws in their beliefs.

I'm not buying this interpretation. Look at the entire set of ayahs in order there, and you will see that you are wrong.

74--Abraham tells his father he rejects polytheism.
75--"So also did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he might have certainty"
*Here Allah is doing these things for Abraham's certainty in his newfound monotheism.
76-7---Abraham is associating partners with Allah (swt), as already mentioned.
78--Abraham finally recognizes that God is bigger than all of these things, fulfilling that he has certainty as described in ayah 75. "...O my people! I am free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah."
*he is free. Not that he is not guilty. He has been delivered from the prison of ignorance.
79--now he shows he is certain
80-82--Now you see da'wah.
83--"That was the reasoning about Us which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree"

Any claim that all of the Prophets are equally sinless has to reconcile this ayah:

"Those messengers! We preferred some often to others; to some of them Allah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour)" Al-Baqara, 253

Why would Allah prefer some to others? Why would he raise some to be honored more than others?

Surely because some did sin, even if they were the most devout people of their time.

Peace brother

[Woodrow]

Just want to add a little something here. The actual Gospel (Injil)revelaed to Jesus(as) is not found in the NT or the OT. In the NT we have what are essentially Ahadith relating to eyewitness acounts of Jesus(as) Although the level of authenticity is not very well preserved as no writings exist prior to the Koine Greek and the authorship is not very well verified. It is generally understood by even Christian scholars that the Actual author of John is unknown and that the "Book of Revelations" was not written by the same person who wrote the "Gospel of John"

The Book of revelations and the writtings of Paul can not be considered Ahadith as they are the opinions, ideas etc of only one person and not any eyewitness account of anything Jesus(as) said or did. The NT, in my opinion, would be like if I rejected the Quran and followed Islam only by the Ahadith. The NT does not have the Injil in it, only reports of witnesses (Ahadith) about what Jesus said and did, and the "Book of Revelations" and the writings of Paul.

[- Qatada -]

I'm not buying this interpretation. Look at the entire set of ayahs in order there, and you will see that you are wrong.

1 - It is a pinnacle of Islamic belief that Prophets do not fall into Major sins [i.e. incest], neither do they ever fall into Polytheism.

2 - If we see Tafsir ibn Katheer, we see the explanation I gave earlier;

We should note here that, in these Ayat, Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was debating with his people, explaining to them the error of their way in worshipping idols and images. In the first case with his father, Ibrahim explained to his people their error in worshipping the idols of earth, which they made in the shape of heavenly angels, so that they intercede on their behalf with the Glorious Creator. His people thought that they are too insignificant to worship Allah directly, and this is why they turned to the worship of angels as intercessors with Allah for their provisions, gaining victory and attaining their various needs. He then explained to them the error and deviation of worshipping the seven planets, which they said were the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The brightest of these objects and the most honored to them was the Sun, the Moon then Venus. Ibrahim, may Allah's peace and blessings be on him, first proved that Venus is not worthy of being worshipped, for it is subservient to a term and course appointed that it does not defy, nor swerving right or left. Venus does not have any say in its affairs, for it is only a heavenly object that Allah created and made bright out of His wisdom. Venus rises from the east and sets in the west where it disappears from sight. This rotation is repeated the next night, and so forth. Such an object is not worthy of being a god. Ibrahim then went on to mention the Moon in the same manner in which he mentioned Venus, and then the Sun. When he proved that these three objects were not gods, although they are the brightest objects the eyes can see,

[قَالَ يقَوْمِ إِنِّى بَرِىءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ]

(he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners in worship with Allah.'')


Tafsir ibn Katheer 6:74-83

Any claim that all of the Prophets are equally sinless has to reconcile this ayah:

"Those messengers! We preferred some often to others; to some of them Allah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour)" Al-Baqara, 253

Why would Allah prefer some to others? Why would he raise some to be honored more than others?

Surely because some did sin, even if they were the most devout people of their time.

These are false interpretations of the Qur'an, which you have sadly misinterpreted yourself.

Rather, Allah has honored certain Messengers' above others. So that some are more respected, and mentioned and followed. So we see that although there are 124,000 Prophets' of God, only some have been mentioned in God's scriptures.


It has got nothing to do with Prophets' of God sinning.

[Hiroshi]

Just want to add a little something here. The actual Gospel (Injil)revelaed to Jesus(as) is not found in the NT or the OT. In the NT we have what are essentially Ahadith relating to eyewitness acounts of Jesus(as) Although the level of authenticity is not very well preserved as no writings exist prior to the Koine Greek and the authorship is not very well verified. It is generally understood by even Christian scholars that the Actual author of John is unknown and that the "Book of Revelations" was not written by the same person who wrote the "Gospel of John"

The Book of revelations and the writtings of Paul can not be considered Ahadith as they are the opinions, ideas etc of only one person and not any eyewitness account of anything Jesus(as) said or did. The NT, in my opinion, would be like if I rejected the Quran and followed Islam only by the Ahadith. The NT does not have the Injil in it, only reports of witnesses (Ahadith) about what Jesus said and did, and the "Book of Revelations" and the writings of Paul.

If what you say is true, how them can Surah 7:157 be correct? As Fivesolas showed, it says that the Injil is "with them": with Christians contemporary with the rise of Islam.

" Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful." Surah 7:157 (Pickthal)

[- Qatada -]

hiroshi, i have explained already:

In surah al Maa'idah of the Quran; 5:13 - Allah tells us that the Jews took their scripture out of context, and forgot portions of their scripture due to that.

And I explained that this was due to many factors, which included external pressures i.e. Oppressive governments, and many other factors.

Furthermore, that does not mean that they still don't have parts of original scripture in their books. But it does mean that part of it is also distorted.


So there was descriptions of Prophet Muhammad in the partly distorted scriptures of the Jews and Christians, and there still are signs of his mention - but some of them will reject, while others will believe - just like the people before us did.


NOTE: We do not believe in Prophet Muhammad because of previous scripture descriptions alone, but rather because of the complete and Miraculous Scripture and Guidance he came with.

[Hiroshi]

hiroshi, i have explained already:

In surah al Maa'idah of the Quran; 5:13 - Allah tells us that the Jews took their scripture out of context, and forgot portions of their scripture due to that.

This link:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...0&LanguageId=2

gives the following commentary on Surah 5:13:-


God says: So because (bi-mā, the mā is extra) of their breaking their covenant, We cursed them, We removed them from Our mercy, and made their hearts hard, unyielding to the acceptance of faith; they pervert words, pertaining to the descriptions of Muhammad (s) in the Torah and other things, from their contexts, those in which God has placed them, in other words, they substitute them; and they have forgotten, they have abandoned, a portion, a part, of what they were reminded of, [of what] they were enjoined to in the Torah, in the way of following Muhammad (s); and you — addressing the Prophet (s) now — will never cease to discover some treachery on their part, in the way of breaking a covenant or some other matter, except for a few of them, who have submitted themselves [to Islam]. Yet pardon them, and forgive; surely God loves the virtuous: this was abrogated by the ‘sword’ verse [Q. 9:5].

So according to this what Surah 5:13 is referring to then is only to Jews living in Muhammad's time changing portions of their scriptures to hide any prophetic reference to Muhammad.

Now even if they had done that, how would it have been possible for them to have altered the thousands of copies of the Hebrew manuscripts elsewhere throughout the world?

Don't you see how impossible it is to make any global change to something so carefully and zealously preserved and widely distributed as the sacred scriptures?

[Hiroshi]

Now that you've quoted al Tabari, maybe you can prove to me whether that story is authentic or not? Did you know that al-Tabari is a collection of recorded events, some true, and others false? And all he has done is merely collect them for later scholars to decipher their authenticity.

Here is more support for that story. This link:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...0&LanguageId=2

has this commentary:

And We certainly tried Solomon: We tested him by wresting his kingdom from him, because he had married a woman [solely] out of his desire for her. She used to worship idols in his [own] home without his knowledge. Now, [control of] his kingdom lay in his ring. On one occasion, needing to withdraw [to relieve himself], he took it off and left it with this woman of his, whose name was al-Amīna, as was his custom; but a jinn, [disguised] in the form of Solomon, came to her and seized it from her. And We cast upon his throne a [lifeless] body, which was that [very] jinn, and he was [the one known as] Sakhr — or it was some other [jinn]; he sat upon Solomon’s throne and so [as was the case with Solomon] the birds and other [creatures] devoted themselves to him [in service]. When Solomon came out [of his palace], having seen him [the jinn] upon his throne, he said to the people, ‘I am Solomon [not him]!’ But they did not recognise him. Then he repented — Solomon returned to his kingdom, many days later, after he had managed to acquire the ring. He wore it and sat upon his throne [again].

[- Qatada -]

Hiroshi, you're not understanding 2 points.


1 - Can you prove to me that the Torah given to Moses, is the Torah we have today? Can you provide a direct chain linking back to the time of Moses to prove that? We should have something to define what the true Torah is, and what is not.

2 - The Tafaseer you are quoting, are merely quoting from the Israee`liyaat [Israelite References] i.e. Biblical references. And are not necessarily true, nor do we have to believe in such statements to be Muslims.

[Fivesolas]

Just want to add a little something here. The actual Gospel (Injil)revelaed to Jesus(as) is not found in the NT or the OT. In the NT we have what are essentially Ahadith relating to eyewitness acounts of Jesus(as) Although the level of authenticity is not very well preserved as no writings exist prior to the Koine Greek and the authorship is not very well verified. It is generally understood by even Christian scholars that the Actual author of John is unknown and that the "Book of Revelations" was not written by the same person who wrote the "Gospel of John"

The Book of revelations and the writtings of Paul can not be considered Ahadith as they are the opinions, ideas etc of only one person and not any eyewitness account of anything Jesus(as) said or did. The NT, in my opinion, would be like if I rejected the Quran and followed Islam only by the Ahadith. The NT does not have the Injil in it, only reports of witnesses (Ahadith) about what Jesus said and did, and the "Book of Revelations" and the writings of Paul.

Woodrow,

Without going into detail, my speculation is that you are learning about Christian scholarship from Muslims. I would humbly suggest that you research such scholarship a bit more closely. And recognize that there is conservative and liberal scholarship that is called Christian.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow,

Without going into detail, my speculation is that you are learning about Christian scholarship from Muslims. I would humbly suggest that you research such scholarship a bit more closely. And recognize that there is conservative and liberal scholarship that is called Christian.

Uhhh for most of my life I was a Christian and at one point a Missionary in the Mideast doing my best to convert Muslims to Christianity. I will agree that I may no longer know much about Christianity as much of what I was taught as a Christian seems to have changed over the past 40 years or so.

After leaving Catholicism I thought I had found my home among the Pentecostal Churches. I admit that was an error on my part.

Without Islam finding me 5 years ago, I never would have returned to God(swt) and most likely would be finishing my final earthly years as either an agnostic or an atheist.

[SalamChristian]

In surah al Maa'idah of the Quran; 5:13 - Allah tells us that the Jews took their scripture out of context, and forgot portions of their scripture due to that. And I explained that this was due to many factors, which included external pressures i.e. Oppressive governments, and many other factors. Furthermore, that does not mean that they still don't have parts of original scripture in their books. But it does mean that part of it is also distorted.

No, it does not. You are making false conclusions. It means that they took it out of context, and misinterpreted it. Nowhere does the Qu'ran say that the written scripture itself is distorted. The Qu'ran instead says to turn to them for proof of the Truth concerning matters it discusses.

Salaam

[Hiroshi]

1 - Can you prove to me that the Torah given to Moses, is the Torah we have today? Can you provide a direct chain linking back to the time of Moses to prove that? We should have something to define what the true Torah is, and what is not.

I shouldn't have to do that. The burden of proof should rest with Muslims to demonstrate that there have been huge changes in the text of the Bible. The only real reason to think this is that the Qur'an and the Bible are not in agreement. There is no evidence from archaeology or ancient manuscripts that corruption of the text has occurred on the vast scale required to explain this disagreement.

The Jews were extraordinarily meticulous in their copying of the scriptures, even going to the extreme of counting the letters that were copied. And the writings were placed in the safe keeping of the religious leaders. If these men had sought to alter any of the scriptures then you would expect them to change those parts that exposed their failures and wrongdoings. But they did not. The Bible accounts are so honest and candid that even some Bible writers admitted their own faults. But nothing has been altered or changed.

[Hiroshi]

After leaving Catholicism I thought I had found my home among the Pentecostal Churches. I admit that was an error on my part.

I definitely agree with you there.

[Hiroshi]

2 - The Tafaseer you are quoting, are merely quoting from the Israee`liyaat [Israelite References] i.e. Biblical references.

Where does the Tafaseer make reference to specific Bible passages or quote the Bible?

And are not necessarily true, nor do we have to believe in such statements to be Muslims.

I thought that Muslims had to believe that Muhammad was prophecied in the Torah and the Injil.

[Woodrow]

I thought that Muslims had to believe that Muhammad was prophecied in the Torah and the Injil.

Why, would that be required? We have no control over what Allaah(swt) has chosen to reveal. If he did not reveal the coming of Muhammad(swt) in the Torah or the Injil we will not find it. If it is prophecised we are obligated to believe it. If we can not find it in the Torah or Injil that can be because we do not have the uncorrupted versions or it was not in them.

However, it seems logical that it would have been revealed in the true Torah and Injil.

[- Qatada -]

No, it does not. You are making false conclusions. It means that they took it out of context, and misinterpreted it. Nowhere does the Qu'ran say that the written scripture itself is distorted. The Qu'ran instead says to turn to them for proof of the Truth concerning matters it discusses.

Salaam

. فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً - يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ - وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

[Quran 5:13]

Nasoow means 'to Forget' [plural]. They Forgot a portion of the Revelation.

Where does the Tafaseer make reference to specific Bible passages or quote the Bible?

In the past, they wouldn't write down the page number or the publication of a book. They would merely quote from the Israee'liyaat [Israelite books], but it would be taken only for the sake of Narrative, but not for any Islamic beliefs.

If you want to know the [lack of] importance of Isra'eeliyaat in Tafaseer, just refer to the Sciences of Tafseer [Usool al-Tafseer].

The burden of proof should rest with Muslims to demonstrate that there have been huge changes in the text of the Bible.

Let me just tell you, that lies and insults and evil slanders which can hardly be imaginable about a normal person are attributed to God's Messengers' (i.e. (Genesis 19:30-32)), and that is sufficient for me that the Old/New Testament is not from God.

And furthermore, the fact that we don't even know who they are from is a further concern. I.e. The Gospels are 'According to Luke', 'According to John' etc. yet the authors are anonymous. Why should I accept a piece of work which claims to be inspired from God, when i dont even know the author who writ it?

I thought that Muslims had to believe that Muhammad was prophecied in the Torah and the Injil.

The Injil was what Jesus preached, the Gospels of today are not necessarily the Injil. And as per my first point, I do not know which parts the Jews forgot, and I do not wish to believe that God's Prophets' are evil men, as per the Old Testament.

[SalamChristian]

Nasoow means 'to Forget' [plural]. They Forgot a portion of the Revelation.

Forgetting is mental. It is not scriptural. LOST is the word Jibreel (as) would have used here, if he meant that they LOST the scriptures. The words in the Qu'ran are specifically used for a specific reason.

Funny you mention that Qatada. That is exactly what our Injeel says:

"Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’[h]?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”[i]


This is a prohpecy from THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES--ISAIAH--and Jesus says the SAME THING the Qu'ran says--that they have forgotten and misunderstood the truthful scriptures in their hands. THE CORNERSTONE that Jesus describes is the Shema--love your neighbour as yourself. The Jews were oppressing others and pursuing drunkeness and sensuality (Ezekiel), because they were focusing on the 613 commandments of God while forgetting the basics--the Shema--loving your neighbor as yourself.


Shalom

[- Qatada -]

Forgetting is mental. It is not scriptural. LOST is the word Jibreel (as) would have used here, if he meant that they LOST the scriptures. The words in the Qu'ran are specifically used for a specific reason.

If I say the following in consecutive order;

1) He distorted the true interpretation.
2) And he forgot what he was reminded of.


What does that imply?

It implies: He distorted the true interpretation, and then he forgot it.

[SalamChristian]

1) He distorted the true interpretation. 2) And he forgot what he was reminded of. What does that imply? It implies: He distorted the true interpretation, and then he forgot it.

Forgetting is mental. It is not scriptural. LOST is the word Jibreel (as) would have used here, if he meant that they LOST the scriptures. The words in the Qu'ran are specifically used for a specific reason. Funny you mention that Qatada. That is exactly what our Injeel says: "Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’[h]? 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”[i] This is a prohpecy from THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES--ISAIAH--and Jesus says the SAME THING the Qu'ran says--that they have forgotten and misunderstood the truthful scriptures in their hands. THE CORNERSTONE that Jesus describes is the Shema--love your neighbour as yourself. The Jews were oppressing others and pursuing drunkeness and sensuality (Ezekiel), because they were focusing on the 613 commandments of God while forgetting the basics--the Shema--loving your neighbor as yourself. Shalom

Asalaam Alaikum Allahu Aqbar brothers,
AbdAllah

[- Qatada -]

1) I believe the Torah was distorted because of the evil insults against God's Messengers'.

2) Let's just say for arguments sake that they didn't distort the Torah, you should know that the Jews also had the Tanakh [the Oral Tradition], which is similar to the Ahadeeth in Islam. They would not write this down [most probably because they wanted to differentiate it from the Torah], but would preserve it through passing the statements of the Tanakh to the next generation, orally (through speech.)

They most likely did forget and distort the Tanakh.


What's the importance of the Tanakh?

The importance of the context of guidance is as important as the Book of Law itself.


Ask any person on this forum how important the Qur'an is in relation to the Sunnah, and they will tell you that they are equal. Just as the Tanakh is important to the Jews as the Torah.

[Hiroshi]

Let me just tell you, that lies and insults and evil slanders which can hardly be imaginable about a normal person are attributed to God's Messengers' (i.e. (Genesis 19:30-32)), and that is sufficient for me that the Old/New Testament is not from God.

Again and again Muslims refer to the narrative of Lot and his daughters to accuse the Bible of gross and outrageous insults and lies. Genesis 19:31-38 reports that Lot’s daughters got their father so drunk with wine that he did not know what was happening and then had relations with him so that they both became pregnant and each had a son, one called Moab and the other Ammon.

The account is important because it establishes the relationship between the Moabites and the Ammonites to the Israelites. They were close relatives. It was out of regard for Lot that God dealt mercifully with the descendants of his sons, Moab and Ammon (also called Ben-ammi).

According to the Bible Lot was not a prophet of God, although the Qur’an calls him such. Lot was not aware of what his daughters were doing so he was quite innocent. His daughters badly wanted to bear children but not by the wicked inhabitants of the land around them. So what they did may have seemed their only option.

The name Moab means “From father” and the name Ben-ammi means “Son of my people” (i.e. son of my relatives, not of foreigners). The Moabites and the Ammonites were historical tribes and nations. Ruth (the wife of Boaz) who became an ancestress of Jesus (Ruth 4:13-17; Luke 3:32) was a Moabitess (Ruth 4:10). So the very names of these historical tribes testify to the truthfulness of the Bible’s account.

It is sad that, rather than giving the Bible commendation for honesty in reporting even unpleasant details such as this, the tendency is instead to condemn the Bible as if it contains vicious slander.

[- Qatada -]

First of all, i don't think its even relevant for a Guidance from God to mention such an event. Since it provides no positive basis except the encouragement of Incest.

Second, whether he is a Prophet or a righteous man according to the Bible, does not give a good example for others does it? - for a righteous man or Prophet to get so drunk, that he doesn't even know that he's having sex with his own daughters?

[SalamChristian]

First of all, i don't think its even relevant for a Guidance from God to mention such an event. Since it provides no positive basis except the encouragement of Incest. Second, whether he is a Prophet or a righteous man according to the Bible, does not give a good example for others does it? - for a righteous man or Prophet to get so drunk, that he doesn't even know that he's having sex with his own daughters?

In the Old Testament, God is the example to follow, every time. Even the language of the Torah describes how the Jews are supposed to do to others as God has done for them.

In the New Testament, Jesus is the shining example of how men can fully achieve what God has been urging us to do from the beginning. The "light upon the hill" as he describes it. He is the first to achieve this for all to see--the Messiah.

Shalom

[- Qatada -]

In the Old Testament, God is the example to follow, every time. Even the language of the Torah describes how the Jews are supposed to do to others as God has done for them.

And you know that God is extremely angry with the Jews and punishes them alot in the Old Testament, you know that right? And we know how much even the companions of Moses rebelled against Moses, and even God. So you can imagine what future generations did...

In the New Testament, Jesus is the shining example of how men can fully achieve what God has been urging us to do from the beginning. The "light upon the hill" as he describes it. He is the first to achieve this for all to see--the Messiah.

Shalom

Yes, I believe a Messenger of God is the best example for mankind. That includes Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them.)

[SalamChristian]

And you know that God is extremely angry with the Jews and punishes them alot in the Old Testament, you know that right?

Sometimes. Other times he is pleased with their actions.

So you can imagine what future generations did...

Don't need to imagine it. It is described in thorough detail in our scriptures.

Salaam

[Hiroshi]

First of all, i don't think its even relevant for a Guidance from God to mention such an event. Since it provides no positive basis except the encouragement of Incest.

As I explained, it was important to show that the Ammonites and Moabites were descended from Lot. Abraham married his half-sister, the daughter of his father (Genesis 20:12). I suppose Muslims deny that also. And the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve must have married their own brothers and sisters, right?

All such things took place relatively early in mankind's history. Mankind was physically closer to perfection then. It wasn't until more centuries down the line that close relatives were forbidden to marry under the Law of Moses. By that time it would cause harmful birth defects in the inbred children.

[Hiroshi]

Second, whether he is a Prophet or a righteous man according to the Bible, does not give a good example for others does it? - for a righteous man or Prophet to get so drunk, that he doesn't even know that he's having sex with his own daughters?

Lot was not habitually drunk. The Bible calls him a righteous man (2 Peter 2:7-8). Likely he was not used to strong wine. Those who are not used to alcohol can drink too much before they are aware of it. And this can often happen when they are encouraged to do so by trusted companions or, as in Lot’s case, family members.