The past few posts bring to mind:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
attributed to Edmund Burke-- circa:1790
In which case we can hardly call them good at all.
The past few posts bring to mind:
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
attributed to Edmund Burke-- circa:1790
This converation with Hiroshi has, I think, been meaningful. But I am curious how it is that it ended up in this thread rather than in the Questions of Jehovah Witnesses thread? Anyway, can we return to Al-manar's analysis of the Quran vs. the Bible here but continue this other discussion regarding JW views there?
On a personal note I do not believe the numbers of people willing to die for any faith is proof of the truth of the religion, but it is strong evidence that the followers have strong faith it is true.
I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.
No, there's really nothing in the Koran about it at all, and the ahadith in question are quite controversial.
Yusuf Ali has this comment to that verse in a footnote: "they began to misuse Scripture itself, by either taking words out of their right meaning, or applying them to things for which they were never meant".They:
1- Corrupted the revelation:
5:13 they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..
etc....
Yusuf Ali has this comment to that verse in a footnote: "they began to misuse Scripture itself, by either taking words out of their right meaning, or applying them to things for which they were never meant".
Surah 5:13 does not mean that the Jews corrupted the writings of the Scriptures. It means that they misapplied the words by taking them out of context.
The Jews suffered greatly under the oppression and heavy taxation of imperial Rome. They were desperate for someone to arise as the Messiah who would lead them into battle against this tyranny and defeat all of their enemies. At first, Jesus seemed the perfect candidate with his miraculous ability to feed thousands with five loaves and two fishes. This would have given them a military advantage under times of siege and food shortage. But Jesus proved a disappointment for them. When the people came to make him their king by force he withdrew into a mountain all alone (John 6:15). Perhaps many viewed that as uncaring cowardice on his part. But Jesus had a sacred responsibility entrusted to him and could not concern himself with worldly political squabbles. And Jesus' disciples have to follow his example.It's not always about spreading Christianity. Sometimes it just about defending the week and helpless and lifting the burden of the oppressed.
You do realize that those who abstain from the political world, whether it is their intent or not, have effectively cast their lot with prevailing said, be it for good or evil, they are saying they don't care.
The Qur'an is clear in saying that (1) the Torah and Injeel were revelations from God and (2) that no one can corrupt or change the words or decrees of God.yes the Jews , misapplied the words by taking them out of context, besides, displacing, adding,deleting....
more important writing a text from their minds claiming it to be the word of God....
Quran2:79
Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands write, and for the gain they make thereby.
But Jesus had a sacred responsibility entrusted to him and could not concern himself with worldly political squabbles.
The Qur'an is clear in saying that (1) the Torah and Injeel were revelations from God .
that no one can corrupt or change the words of God..
yes ..
verse?
The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) Thus, all attempts to change God’s words have failed because it is inconceivable that God would permit any manipulation of his books.
The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) Thus, all attempts to change God’s words have failed because it is inconceivable that God would permit any manipulation of his books.
The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) .
The context is about messengers from God and the message that they bring.read the context
(Al-An‘ām 6:34 Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.
Words here don't refer to neither the Quran nor the Bible ...... it is Synonyms to ( promises,decision,will).....
God promissed victory for those with patience and constancy ,a divine will that can't be altered...
similar verse:
Holy Quran - 37:172 Our word had been decreed to Our servants who were sent.That they would be made victorious.
God's word(s) in the Quran could refer to scripture besides promises,decisions,judgements,will eg; .....
Holy Quran: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.
God's word in the verse doesn't refer to scripture but to divine decision, and the divine decision or promise can never be altered ....
Regards
The context is about messengers from God and the message that they bring.
Some are saying that there are certain Qur’ānic verses that speak of such corruption (Arabic, taḥrīf). But what do Muslim scholars say about this? Commentaries explain corruption in two ways: (1) Falsification of the text (altering any written character) and (2) twisting (distorting) the meaning of the text. Muslim commentators are not unanimous that the corruption referred to is that of altering the written text.
In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].” In his commentary on Al-Nisā’ [4]:46, Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.” In his commentary on Al-Mā’idah [5]:13, he says: “This corruption (taḥrīf) could be [1] false interpretation, and it could be [2] altering the written text. However, we have already shown that the first explanation is most probable, because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.” Examples of twisting the meaning of God’s books can be seen in the interpretations that many religions give in support of their false beliefs.
Surah 7:157 describes these as "the Torah and the Gospel which are with them." (Pickthall) So, by this definition, the texts are what make up the body of writing that existed with the Jews and Christians at the time of the rise of Islam.what text are you talking about here? - are you talking about the bible (which one 66 or 73 books?) including Pauls work and viewpoints from John, Luke, mattew and mark - is this what you are talking about???
Falsification of the text (altering any written character) and (2) twisting (distorting) the meaning of the text. Muslim commentators are not unanimous that the corruption referred to is that of altering the written text..
Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect..
Thank you for pointing this out and I hope that I did not quote Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī out of context. If I did the I apologize. But I find it difficult to reconcile what he says there (that Surah 5:41: "refers to both kinds of corruption ,as they were both twisting the meaning, and alter the written text as well") with what he also said: "it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession."good to know that...
Have you read what Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī ,would write in the very next lines?
let me quote him:
Arabic
المسألة الرابعة: ذكر الله تعالى ههنا: { عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } وفي المائدة
{ مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ }
[المائدة: 41] والفرق أنا إذا فسرنا التحريف بالتأويلات الباطلة، فههنا قوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، فههنا قوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، وليس فيه بيان أنهم يخرجون تلك اللفظة من الكتاب.
وأما الآية المذكورة في سورة المائدة، فهي دالة على أنهم جمعوا بين الأمرين، فكانوا يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة، وكانوا يخرجون اللفظ أيضا من الكتاب، فقوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ } إشارة إلى التأويل الباطل وقوله: { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } إشارة إلى إخراجه عن الكتاب.
English:
The fourth question: Allah mentioned in the verse the expression (after its places) and in another similar verse (from after its places)
{ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ }
compared to
{ مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ }
the difference is: IF we understand the corruption in the sense of twisting the meaning [misinterpreting it]
then they (corrupted it after its places) { عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } ...means after the text had its place in the page,they twisted it, without altering it....
that is different from the verse 5:41 where the expression { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } ,which Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī ...
for those who would like to verify ,there is the specific page of the book (In Arabic)...
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp...No=46&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1
..........................
you see ,we have the words of Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī himslef, in the same exact page of his book, .... he affirmed his understanding of verse 5:41 as a reference to textual altering.....
Surah 7:157 describes these as "the Torah and the Gospel which are with them." (Pickthall) So, by this definition, the texts are what make up the body of writing that existed with the Jews and Christians at the time of the rise of Islam.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.