Fundamental Principle 2: Intact Message Preserved

Yes this is true, Allah promises that the Qur'an cannot be corrupted and is accurately preserved to this day.


Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it. Q15:9

falsehood shall not come to it, from before it, nor from behind it - a revelation from the wise, the praiseworthy One. Q41:42

Do they not meditate on the Qur'ran? if it were from other than God they would find in it many a discrepancy. Q4:82

I hesitated in making this thread due to the reason that some of the discussion here will depend on the agrement on the previous principle, although that is still under construction.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed. Taking Christianity as the obvious example, I see no reason to believe it has. Sure, I've seen many lists of 'errors' in the Bible, but none are of any real importance to the actual messages within it.

Well, first lets agree or disagree on the principle instead of asking whether a specific religion falls under the principle.

Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed.

I am asking, not whether there is, but if there is, then is one justified in not accepting that religion as being from God?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Secondly, such criticism seems restricted to the Bible for no particular reason I can see. I don't see anybody suggesting that we should ignore Plato and Aristotle because of a few copying errors somewhere along the line. Looking back to your earlier thread the 'authority' of such people is not diminished in the slightest and yet there is little doubt similar errors would have occurred.

Well we are speaking within the realms of religion, the point rests on, if there is a Just God, can we then expect that he would deal unjustly. With regards to non religious material that is different as the context is different.

You can argue, why is it for example that although we have many more manuscripts for the NT than other work, the NT is still debated whilst the same people do not debate works less attested to the NT. That's a topic for a different thread, as that discusses a specific and not the principle, nor, as far as i can see, aids the discussion on the principle.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Thirdly, Christians might argue perfectly reasonably from a theist perspective that for God, being omnipotent, ensuring that any changes did not affect anything important would be trivial.

Well, the context of the Principles is that they are utilised in finding the right religion, if there is one, or at least to verify the religion. Of course if an individual is going to start with a presumption and never budge then no point in discussion. Anyone can say 'Well I believe the my God who revealed this book has preserved it'. So although I understand your point, this is not really a discussion which would benefit people, rightly or wrongly, with that view point.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

And fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.

Am confused, please re-word that.

Howdy people,

format_quote Originally Posted by kirk

Muslims claim that god gave Mohammad a message and it was later written in the Koran.

Christians do not claim the same about Jesus. Christians have never made such a claim.

So you're comment "The intact message" is already wrong.

If you wish to compare the 2 religions this is not the subject to choose.
k

This thread is not neccesarily about Islam or Christianity directly. As for your comment, you are partially right but mainly mistaken, many Christians and Muslims claim that the message of God has been preserved.

Jesus did recieve a Message from God, some call it the Gospel, good news, also known as 'The Kingdom of heaven' and so forth, but the difference is the format, i.e. the way the message was given and preserved, in which you are right, Christians now claim different to Muslims.

For example, if you ask a Christian, has the message of Christianity been preserved they will exclaim 'yes!' Similarly for a Muslim.

We are not discussing how God brought the message forth, i.e. whether through a man and direct word for word inspiration, as you seem to hold Muslims view God in Islam, or through men and indirect inspiration as some may claim for the Christian view of God.

That is a different factor my friend.

This thread is about: Whether or not in an instance: if there is substantial doubt with regards to the retaining of the supposed message of God can the religion be really from God, and can we expect God to punish those who refrained due to that doubt. (Regardless of how the Message was intialy brought forth)

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I'm perhaps not the one to ask as I don't believe one to be be 'justified' in accepting any religion comes from God, there being no such entity for it to come from. However, that aside, no, I don't think so. "Reason to suspect" is not "proof", and it can be easily avoided with a good dose of faith. I would consider that the faith required to assume any changes are not significant was totally dwarfed by that required to think anything came from God.

It does not really matter if you believe in a God or not to place yourself within the realms of this. I am asking, suppose there is, then what..But anyhow since you replied, let us move forward...

Reason to suspect is not proof, I think I agree if you mean that reason to suspect is not proof that the suspected is what one assume he is, but I think, logical reason to suspect is evidence that it is not from a Just God, at least not one who will punish people who refuse to follow, due to that genuine doubt.

For how can a Just God punish people who had genuine reason to distrust the claims of people that a book/instruction was from Him?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I don't really think you can tackle this as a hypothetical, general point in the way you suggest.

Why?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

If you could be reasonably certain that a work claimed to come from God had, in fact, been altered from the original beyond all recognition then of course you would be unlikely to accept it as coming from God, although that would not disqualify the possibility the original work had. Faith can only go so far, but how far would depend on specifics.

I agree, one would then have to assume that God chose not to deliever this message to the later generations, now, it may not disqualify the possibility that the original work had been from God, but it would disqualify that God intended that original work for later generations. If one presumes that God had this Will as a Just God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

The context may be different in that no divine authorship is claimed, but I don't see how that answers the point I raised.

It answers in the sense that this deals with the presumption of a God working with mankind through time, a just God who would ensure His Message was clear in general.

Now, outside the realms of religion I don't think people claim that for or hold that with regards to the works mentioned.

If you want to ask why is it for example that although we have many more manuscripts for the NT than other work, the NT is still debated whilst the same people do not debate works less attested to the NT. Then that is something else, because this is discussing a matter with people who hold a view, a view which I dont think has even come up in this thread. Also there are various reasons why some would doubt the work more, and also various reasons why some would not even care about whether Aristotle's Book was changed yet care about whether a supposed book from God was, if you wish to discuss that then a different thread? As I don't see how it aids us in descovering the correctness of the principle.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Yes, they can. So, as I said, an "intact message" cannot be a fundamental principle in determining belief.

Well it cannot be for those who hold to just beliving for the sake of believing I guess, so yes you are right, it is not for them.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Really just an expansion on the above. Many Christians might admit that there is doubt that the Bible has not been significantly changed.. although 'significantly' would have to be within certain boundaries, of course. They are not unduly bothered, hence an "unchanged message" cannot be a "fundamental principle" to them.

Yes, I agree, people differ, some argue that the revision and reconstruction, as close as possible, to the eldest text of the NT is bad, they prefer the KJV no matter how much evidence from other manuscripts are found, this though should not stop those engaged in finding the elder manuscripts and working towards recovering the best NT ever.

I agree some individuals may not think of principles or work with them, and that is their choice. I guess this is my reasoning;

If a message was to be sent to any of us containing important instructions we would expect that this message would be taken care of by the one sending it until it reaches us. If a letter came to us which had been changed, or there appeared considerable doubt that it may have been changed thus leaving us unsure, then we would hesitate to follow the instructions fearing that the changes made might cause harm, and if asked why we did not follow the instructions we would be justified in saying that we refrained out of precaution.

Noone Else Has A View Point on This Subject?

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy

Surely it is extremely important to know.
If you believe in God, why would you want to risk eternal punishment for believing the wrong thing because someone changed the holy texts?

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

If there is reason to believe the possibility that the text could have been altered, how could you know to what extent it had been?

Historical context is one thing to look at. Also, the fact that there are 2 testaments: the old and the new.....clearly there has been alteration.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,

Curious wording here:



How can someone be totally sure of something due to a high probability?

Hi,

I do think I didn't pick the best words, what I meant was that due to the evidence we have we feel there is no room for doubt.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

I obviously can't really have a view on the main topic, given that I believe there is no god, although I would say that there are religions whose messages are not considered to have come from god [e.g. Buddhism], or through multifarious and sometimes indirect means [e.g. Christianity], so the answer to the original question depends mainly on which religion you believe in.

Peace

Sure you can have an input, if there was a God, see, these topics are starting with various assumptions, I'm sure you can assume the things and then ask yourself the questions.

The task would be, if you assume that there was a God, a Just God, who sent mankind a message, then would you be justified in ruling out any religion which claimed to come from this God because there is substantial doubt as to if the message has been retained?

As for religions that do not claim to come from God, then according to the assumptions laid out they would not be considered true. Also we are not talking about the method through which God chose to convey His message but rather the fact that a Just God would preserve it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Azy

Surely it is extremely important to know.
If you believe in God, why would you want to risk eternal punishment for believing the wrong thing because someone changed the holy texts?

If there is reason to believe the possibility that the text could have been altered, how could you know to what extent it had been?

Well each individual case mat differ, but this is what I mean.

double post..

the very short answer to your Q.. from Load-Islam AKA LI

What They Say about the Qur'an

By : Arthur J. Arberry



Humanity has received the Divine guidance only through two channels: firstly the word of Allah; secondly the Prophets who were chosen by Allah to communicate His Will to human beings. These two have always been going together and attempt to know the Will of Allah by neglecting either of these two have always been misleading.

The Hindus neglected their prophets and paid attention to their books that proved only word puzzles which they ultimately lost. Similarly, the Christians in total disregard to the Book of Allah, attached all importance to Jesus Christ and they not only elevated him to Divinity, but also lost the very essence of Monotheism contained in the Bible.

As a matter of fact, the main scriptures revealed before the Qur'an, i.e., the Old Testament and the Gospel, came in book-form long after the days of the Prophets and also the translation. This was because the followers of Moses and Jesus made no considerable efforts to preserve these Revelations during the life of their Prophets . Rather they were written long after their disappearance. Thus, what we now have is in the form of the Bible (i.e., the Old and the New Testament) which is translations of individuals' accounts of the original revelations which contain additions and deletions made by the followers of the said Prophets.

On the contrary, the last revealed Book, the Qur'an is extant in its original form. Allah Himself guaranteed its preservation and that is why the whole of the Qur'an was written during the life time of the Prophet Muhammad though on separate pieces of palm leaves, parchments, bones, etc. Moreover, there were tens of thousands of the companions of the Prophet who memorized the whole Qur'an and the Prophet used to recite it to the Angel Gabriel once a year and twice when he was about to die.

Then the first Caliph Abu Bakr entrusted the collection of the whole Qur'an in one volume to Prophet's scribe, Zaid Ibn Thabit. This volume was with Abu Bakr till his death. Then it was with the second Caliph Umar and after him it came to Hafsa, the Prophet's wife. It was from this original copy that the third Caliph Uthman prepared several other copies and sent them to different Muslim territories.

The Qur'an was so meticulously preserved because it was to be the Book of guidance for humanity for all times to come. That is why it does not address the Arabs alone in whose language it was revealed. It speaks to man as a human being. "O Man! What has made you careless concerning your Lord, the Most Generous." (82:6)

The practicability of the Qur'anic teachings is established by the examples of Muhammad and the good Muslims throughout the ages. The distinctive approach of the Qur'an is that its instructions are aimed at the general welfare of man and are based on the possibilities within his reach. In all its dimensions the Qur'anic wisdom is conclusive. It neither condemns nor tortures the flesh nor does it neglects the soul. It does not humanize God or does it deify man. Everything is carefully placed where it belongs in the total scheme of creation.

Actually, the scholars who allege that Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an claim something which is humanly impossible.

Firstly, could any person of the sixth century C. E. utter such scientific truths contained in the Qur'an? Could such person describe the evolution of the embryo inside the uterus so accurately as we find it in modern science?

Secondly, is it logical to believe that Muhammad who up to the age of forty was marked only for his honesty and integrity, began all of a sudden the authorship of a book matchless in literary merit and the equivalent of which the whole legion of the Arab poets and orators of highest caliber could not produce?

Lastly, is it justified to say that Muhammad who was known as AL- AMEEN (The trustworthy) in his society and who at the same time admired by the non-Muslim scholars for his honesty and integrity, came forth with a false claim and on that falsehood could train thousands of men of character, integrity and honesty, who were able to establish the best human society on the surface of the earth? Surely, any sincere and unbiased searcher of truth will come to believe that the Qur'an is the revealed Book of Allah.

Without necessarily agreeing with all what they said, we furnish here some opinions of important non-Muslim scholars about the Qur'an. Readers can easily see how the modern world is coming closer to reality regarding the Qur'an . We appeal to all open-minded scholars to study the Qur'an in the light of aforementioned points. We are sure that any such attempt will convince the reader that the Qur'an could never be written by any human being.

"However often we turn to it [the Qur'an ] at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds and in the end enforces our reverence.. Its style in accordance with its contents and aim is stem, grand, terrible - ever and anon truly sublime.. Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence." Goethe, quoted in T. P. Hughes, "Dictionary of Islam", p. 526.

"The Koran admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though the youngest of the epoch-making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of Muhammadan world which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the East have to reckon today." G. Margoliouth, Introduction to J M. Rodwell's, The Koran, New York: Everyman's Library, 1977, p. VII.

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Quran and Science, 1978, p. 125.

"Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some pre-conceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen. If he spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact well organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history." Dr. Streingass, quoted in Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, p.528.

"In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind... This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony,' as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy'- has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds duff and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original."


http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...ubsection=FAQS

your point being? Jews and Christians are known as 'people of the book' and btw they weren't the only ones mentioned, since the scrolls of Abraham and the psalms of David are also mentioned..

you believe in the scriptures of the Jews, why aren't you Jewish?