Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Hiroshi]

Peace Hiroshi,

Actually the view of the OT by both Muslims and Christians id nearly identical. It is not so much of a question of errors or ommissions it is more in line with being it is not a complete revelation and was for specific people of a specific time. T ocomplete the word Jesus(PBUH) was given the injil to pass on to the people. Here is were we see the problem.

The NT is basically the words of man and their impression of who Jesus(PBUH) is, it contains very little if any actual revelation from God(SWT) except possibly in some of the direct quotes from Jesus(PBUH). This is just one of the reasons we believe the Injil was not preserved and that the NT is not the actual words of God(SWT). Not being the direct revelation it is subject to Human error and possibly even fraudulent information being added into it and passed off as being from God(SWT).

Peace Woodrow.

Thank you for addressing my question. But Surah 7:157 (Pickthall) reads: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel [or: "Injil"] (which are) with them." Now those ones alluded to here must include Christians who embraced Islam at a time when they had the Injil "with them". If this is so, then the scriptures that were available at the time of the rise of Islam must be the Injil as defined by the Qur'an. And we have those same scriptures translated into our Bibles today.

 

[Woodrow]

Peace Woodrow.

Thank you for addressing my question. But Surah 7:157 (Pickthall) reads: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel [or: "Injil"] (which are) with them." Now those ones alluded to here must include Christians who embraced Islam at a time when they had the Injil "with them". If this is so, then the scriptures that were available at the time of the rise of Islam must be the Injil as defined by the Qur'an. And we have those same scriptures translated into our Bibles today.

It is not only possible but probable that some Christians did retain the Injil until at least the time of Muhammad(PBUH) We do know one of his uncles ( I believeit was an Uncle) was Christian and he had considerable respect for him. It is also known that on at least one occasion Christians in the region were permitted to hold their worship in a Mosque.It seems that at least those Christians still had the Injil

But, that does not mean all who called themselves Christian were following the Injil. It does seem that the Christians in Greece were following something different than what some of the other Christians were following, if you look at the differences of some of the older denominations that still exist today such as the Coptics, Nazarenes and Sabians. They differ so much that some Christians of today do not view them as being Christian. What is in todays Bible was determined by the Council of Nicea in the year 325. It is probable it had not been accepted by Christians outside Catholicism until centuries later.

So I agree that the Injil was retained until it was fully replaced by the Catholic Bible determined by the Council of Nicea. Which is today's bible with the exception of the KJV which removed 7 books that the council approved.

 

[Hiroshi]

It is not only possible but probable that some Christians did retain the Injil until at least the time of Muhammad(PBUH) We do know one of his uncles ( I believeit was an Uncle) was Christian and he had considerable respect for him. It is also known that on at least one occasion Christians in the region were permitted to hold their worship in a Mosque.It seems that at least those Christians still had the Injil

But, that does not mean all who called themselves Christian were following the Injil. It does seem that the Christians in Greece were following something different than what some of the other Christians were following, if you look at the differences of some of the older denominations that still exist today such as the Coptics, Nazarenes and Sabians. They differ so much that some Christians of today do not view them as being Christian. What is in todays Bible was determined by the Council of Nicea in the year 325. It is probable it had not been accepted by Christians outside Catholicism until centuries later.

So I agree that the Injil was retained until it was fully replaced by the Catholic Bible determined by the Council of Nicea. Which is today's bible with the exception of the KJV which removed 7 books that the council approved.

After the beginning of Christianity there was a huge number of writings produced that were blatant forgeries. Although these purported to be genuine gospel accounts they were often imaginary stories and contained many glaring errors. Often as well, they contradicted the true gospels. There was certainly a need to distinguish between these and the genuine word of God.

But isn't it far, far more likely that the Bible canon retained the authentic books and discarded the worthless ones? Why would they do the opposite?

 

[Woodrow]

But isn't it far, far more likely that the Bible canon retained the authentic books and discarded the worthless ones? Why would they do the opposite?

Unless you consider the possibility of the Greeks trying to restore the glory of Ancient Greece and promoting a hybrid of Christianity and Greek beliefs?

The NT carries very much Greek influence in it, much more of being a Greek philosophy than anything coming from Judea.

 

[Hiroshi]

Unless you consider the possibility of the Greeks trying to restore the glory of Ancient Greece and promoting a hybrid of Christianity and Greek beliefs?

The NT carries very much Greek influence in it, much more of being a Greek philosophy than anything coming from Judea.

Well that is what happened. What began as Christianity gradually became swamped with ideas from (pagan) Greek philosophy. This led to, among other things, a false view of God: that he could be three persons in a trinity.

But the scriptures were not to blame. The writings of the early church fathers and apologists show that they gave more credence and authority to worldly philosophy than to the Bible.

 

[Grace Seeker]

That comes down to your faith in belieiving what the prophet said and accepting their words as divine revelation, if hadith of the prophet Isa were given to you from verified authentic sources, would you not believe them?

Accept them as what? Accept them as being indeed the words or actions of the prophet? If they were verifiable as authentic, then of course. But that still would leave me with two issues: (1) whether or not what is reported as an authentic and verified hadith is indeed truly authentic, or by whose standards is it considered verified as authentic? And (2) whether or not the words and actions of the prophet authentically represent Allah's word and will to us? And of course that doesn't even take into account that even with acceptance of a given hadith as God's word and will questions with regard to proper interpretation and application of that hadith to our lives today.

Now, I have answered you because you asked, and though I have been away from my computer for about 2 weeks, I thought it rude to not answer. I am not answering to challenge you are anyone else to prove to me that indeed all of this is indeed verifiable, authentic, and properly interpreted in Islam today. I understand that you see them that way, and that, of course, from that point of view one would be fully prepared to accept Islam as you experience it. I hope that you can respect that I just don't see the same things to be facts that you do, for if I did I expect that I would be in complete agreement with you as to what those facts meant.

It is interesting that you are still doing this after all these years on board and after being involved in countless threads about evidence that the Qur'an is from Allah SWT, where it has been shown to you that there is no way that prophet Muhammad SAW fabricated the Qur'an and attributed it to God, except that indeed the Qur'an is directly from God.

If only you apply let's say, a fraction (maybe 0.00001%) of the level of your rigorous demands for evidence that The Qur'an is indeed from God and apply that to the bible, surely you would have left christianity long time ago, because simply as it has been shown numerous times in this board, the integrity and authenticity of the bible crumble upon itself when being put under magnifying glass.

I accept that you believe that these things have been shown to be so. However, I do not agree that what you think has been show has actually been shown to be facts. Your "proofs" remain entirely inconclusive to me, and indeed often seem to me to give evidence of the opposite which you seek to establish. I'll not argue the evidence with you in this thread, for that is not what I am interested in learning. I'm seeking to understand Islam, not disprove it. So, my questions are not about saying what is and isn't true, but to help me to understand how it is that you (plural), as a Muslim, see as convincing things that remain unconvincing to me. If my way of asking those questions comes across as pejorative, I apologize.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Well that is what happened. What began as Christianity gradually became swamped with ideas from (pagan) Greek philosophy. This led to, among other things, a false view of God: that he could be three persons in a trinity.

But the scriptures were not to blame. The writings of the early church fathers and apologists show that they gave more credence and authority to worldly philosophy than to the Bible.

Hiroshi, I'm going to ask that we refrain from making doctrinal statements with regard to Christianity in this thread. It seems that you and I probably disagree not only on our understanding of God but also the degree that pagan Greek philosophy influenced the theology of the church vs the degree Jewish theology influenced the Greek/Roman culture as the Christian faith took root within the empire. But more than that, a better reason is simply that this is not the thread for that discussion. This one is to learn about Islam, there are other more appropriate threads for a discussion of Christian theology and history.

 

[Hugo]

Asalamu Alekum
Yes sure, it is written in the Quran. The Quran says:
And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic. (Quran 61:6)

Thank your but can you link this with any section of the New Testament as I cannot recall seeing this mentioned anywhere there.

 

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I'm going to ask that we refrain from making doctrinal statements with regard to Christianity in this thread. It seems that you and I probably disagree not only on our understanding of God but also the degree that pagan Greek philosophy influenced the theology of the church vs the degree Jewish theology influenced the Greek/Roman culture as the Christian faith took root within the empire. But more than that, a better reason is simply that this is not the thread for that discussion. This one is to learn about Islam, there are other more appropriate threads for a discussion of Christian theology and history.

Hi Grace Seeker.

I don't intentionally mean to drag in Christian doctrinal disputes into the discussion but it is sometimes hard to be objective without occasionally making such references. Woodrow is suggesting that the Christian scriptures were biased towards Greek philosophical thought. My point was that the early church was biased in this way but the NT itself wasn't. You may strongly disagree with that view. I'm sorry if that is the case. But the discussion is still centering around the Islamic view of the Bible. Not around Christian theology and history.

Anyway I will try to acquiesce to your wishes in future.

 

[Hiroshi]

Thank your but can you link this with any section of the New Testament as I cannot recall seeing this mentioned anywhere there.

If I'm not being a nuisance let me just comment here. "Ahmad" is almost a translation of the Greek "periclytos". And in John 14:16, John 15:26 and John 16:7 there is a most similar sounding word: "paracletos" used to mean "comforter". I believe that this is the link.

 

[Hugo]

Unless you consider the possibility of the Greeks trying to restore the glory of Ancient Greece and promoting a hybrid of Christianity and Greek beliefs? The NT carries very much Greek influence in it, much more of being a Greek philosophy than anything coming from Judea.

There is no hybrid of religions in my view here but it is true that Greek culture and language had a part to play. Judea was invaded by Babylonian, Persians and eventually the Greeks came around 320BCE as well as destroying the Persian empire and effectively abolishing the frontiers between east and west. It is perhaps too complicated to deal with in a short post but the Jews outside Palestine far outnumbered those left behind and so were most receptive to Hellenism. So an outworking of this is that we have a Hebrew Bible and a Greek one (septuagint) and many copies in part or in whole of these exist from about 300BCE. One must notice here the OT we have pre-dates the Greek invasions. Far from this being a disaster it meant the the OT became widely known almost everywhere in the ancient world.

The First Council of Nicaea resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea and created statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy - the intent being to define and unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed but it did settle to some degree the debate within the early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ and affirmed the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.

Contrary to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon, the list of books decided to be authorative as scripture, was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited. By 325 complete NT were in circulation and of course there is a huge assortment of other manuscript evidence and some go back as far as 35AD and from many different places. If these Injil existed they would show up somewhere in the 6,000 or so manuscripts we have so either they are the same as what we have or we have to dismiss them as mythical since there is no material evidence for them.

 

[YusufNoor]

If I'm not being a nuisance let me just comment here. "Ahmad" is almost a translation of the Greek "periclytos". And in John 14:16, John 15:26 and John 16:7 there is a most similar sounding word: "paracletos" used to mean "comforter". I believe that this is the link.

i'm beginning to enjoy your posts Hiroshi. we may have some common ground on what happened to Christianity. after Ramadhan, In Sha'a Allah, i will discuss this with you.

as for the word paracletos, folks around here will tell you that it CANNOT mean Muhammad, PBUH. what they WON'T tell you is that the word is Greek and therefore it is NOT a word Jesus would have used. nor would any scholar put the word in Jesus' mouth. THEREFORE, evangelicals and fundamentalists will say the John CANNOT be referring to Ahmed because of a word Jesus NEVER EVER EVER used!

ponder that!

:wa:

ps: is this an off topic post? NO, when Muslims tell that paracletos is talking about Ahmed, they are closer to the truth than one who says it CANNOT be based on a word Jesus NEVER used! not to mention Christians claim the Bible is the word of God in any language, unless of course it mentions something about Islam. in which case you have to try another language! :hmm:

 

[Hugo]

If I'm not being a nuisance let me just comment here. "Ahmad" is almost a translation of the Greek "periclytos". And in John 14:16, John 15:26 and John 16:7 there is a most similar sounding word: "paracletos" used to mean "comforter". I believe that this is the link.

I see but Jesus said he would send a comforter who would be with them (the disciples) forever so it seem to be pressing it a bit that it was 600 years later before Mohammed arrived and of course in Acts 2 we have the fulfilment of Jesus' promise. Ahmad in Arabic means "highly praised or praised one" but parakletos according to Vine (dictionary of New Testament Words) comes from an essentially legal term denoting a council for the defence an advocate but in its widest sense means to succour and comfort and that corresponds to menahem given by the Hebrews to the Messiah.

I know transliterations are difficult but Muslims in general claim the word used is or was "periklutos" but although we have thousands of NT manuscripts pre-dating Islam not one of these contains the word "periklutos" and Vine in his dictionary does not even mention it.

 

[Hugo]

as for the word paracletos, folks around here will tell you that it CANNOT mean Muhammad, PBUH. what they WON'T tell you is that the word is Greek and therefore it is NOT a word Jesus would have used. nor would any scholar put the word in Jesus' mouth. THEREFORE, evangelicals and fundamentalists will say the John CANNOT be referring to Ahmed because of a word Jesus NEVER EVER EVER used!

You might like to know that the Galilee area where Jesus taught was kind of centre of Greek influence so it is perfectly possible Jesus was very familiar with Greek words and ideas. As an analogy, if I was in Cairo today I would not hear Egyptians speaking the same Arabic found in the Qu'ran but that would NOT mean they don't understand it. One must also not forget that whilst Latin was the official Roman language and widely spoken the West, in the East the Greek language was the literary language and the lingua franca and as such the Romans retained it as an administrative language rather than impede bureaucratic efficiency. It follows that not even a fisherman would confuse "praised one" with "comforter"

 

[Grace Seeker]

The only way to see whether which book has the Ability to solve the Problems of Humanity, is the only way to come to conclusion which book should be followed as Guidance... we should not forget that Quran i.e the Final Testament is a word of God which was sent to the entire human race, while the earlier Old and New Testaments were only addressed to the Children of Israel....

I hear what I have highlighted frequently, but wonder on what basis it is made?

Now, be clear that I am well aware that the Tanakah established a the rules for the covenantal relationship that the Jews had with YHWH. And I am also familiar with the oft quoted statement in which Jesus said that he was sent to the sheep of Israel. But neither of those is the same as saying "the Old and New Testaments were only addressed to the Children of Israel." Indeed, such a concept is actually foreign to the Bible itself which calls Israel to be a light to the nations and in which the disciples of Jesus are directly instructed to (1) go and make disciples of all nations and (2) to be Jesus' witness to the ends of the earth. So, since Muslims believe, in contradistinction with the expressed internal witness of the Bible itself, that the message of the Jewish prophets and of Jesus were restricted to a select nationality, I assume that this idea must be expressly stated in the Qur'an or Hadith. Where would I find it?

 

[aadil77]

Accept them as what? Accept them as being indeed the words or actions of the prophet? If they were verifiable as authentic, then of course. But that still would leave me with two issues: (1) whether or not what is reported as an authentic and verified hadith is indeed truly authentic, or by whose standards is it considered verified as authentic? And (2) whether or not the words and actions of the prophet authentically represent Allah's word and will to us? And of course that doesn't even take into account that even with acceptance of a given hadith as God's word and will questions with regard to proper interpretation and application of that hadith to our lives today.

I don't know much about the topic of hadith, all I know is that they are rigorously checked for reliablility, the character of narrators would be thoroughly analysed before trusting any narrations from them, you might want to look into it.


Prophets were sent to man as a perfect example of how to live your life, their words and actions had to be from what Allah had taught them because emulating their actions is something which you are rewarded for by Allah.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If we were to put the Ideals and Values in a list and see whether such would be accepted as the best norms for a civilized society in 21st century....


1. Equality, dignity and brotherhood of man.
2. Value of universal education with emphasis on spirit of free inquiry and importance of scientific knowledge.
3. Practice of religious tolerance.
4. Liberation of the woman and her spiritual equality with man.
5. Freedom from slavery and exploitation of all kinds.
6. Dignity of manual labor.
7. Integration of mankind in a feeling of oneness irrespective of their differences in race and color.
8. The devaluation of arrogance and pride based on superiority of race, color, wealth, etc and the founding of society on principle of Justice.
9. Rejection of the philosophy of asceticism.



So feel free to Put to test the Above Norms whenever you are ready ?

My conclusion is that the above list is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive of the values and ideals that I would hold as important or that I wish were normative in society today -- though I don't think I would even want #9 included among the list of ideals -- further, my view is also that neither Christianity nor Islam has lived up to this list of ideals. But, as for their respective sacred texts serving as sources for them, I find similar (but not identical) ideals in both, with the superiority of one over the other probably being cross-correlated to the faith of the one making the evaluation of what ideals are superior. Nothing can be proven from that type of correlation.


You have testified that in your view: "Each one of these said above, are included in the Injunctions of Quran and they are practically shown in the Life of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)...." This is a thread about Islam, not Christianity, I will not enter into a point-counterpoint debate. It is sufficient to know that you use this standard to evaulate the two. Thank-you for your input.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't know much about the topic of hadith, all I know is that they are rigorously checked for reliablility, the character of narrators would be thoroughly analysed before trusting any narrations from them, you might want to look into it.

I don't know much about it either, but trying to learn. I hear some people talk about the "science" of verifying a hadith. Verfiying anecdoctal events can be very difficult, but I know it can be done. Never quite to the 100% level of surety that I see some people attach to the hadith of the prophet, but still I know that historians can be quite certain of some things even in ancient history (of which the prophet's time is much more recent) and I find the process they use to make these ascertions of degrees of certainty amazingly interesting.

 

[Grace Seeker]

No not EVERY WORD AND ACTION just the ones part of the sunnah. The Quran tells us to follow the prophet pbuh.

OK. I really need some help with this. Someone explain to me (yes, again!, sorry) what is the Sunnah? I thought it was the overall teaching of the Prophet (pbuh) -- Quran, Hadith, and his life's actions -- but it seems like that is not right after reading several posts in this thread.

 

[Grace Seeker]

are you joking? the 66 book bible is clear proof of editing Just open up any catholic or non catholic bible. What is it 66 or 73? Pin point editing.

Read what Hugo said again: "No one as far as I know disputes that the Bible was edited" We know that the Bible was edited. It was also redacted, synthesized, even homogenized. No one disputes that. We only dispute that this means it no longer contains God's message for us, or that knowledgable people who are aware of these occurances can't still use the Bible to produce a reliable historical record.