Interesting find - Christians please comment

[Hugo]

Understandably you and I can not agree on this as we both have seperate accepted sources and what is accepted by one is not accepted by the other.

Yes it is true we are not able to agree but I have a huge manuscript base so I can feel confident about the Gospels but you have none and only a single witness to what you have. What I find strange is that Muslims seem ready to accept say the Gospel of Barnabus or eleswhere someone suggested the Gospel of the Nazareans was the injeel yet it only exists in tiny fragments all of which can only be found in other writings - why is this do you think?

 

[Ramadhan]

Yes it is true we are not able to agree but I have a huge manuscript base so I can feel confident about the Gospels but you have none and only a single witness to what you have. What I find strange is that Muslims seem ready to accept say the Gospel of Barnabus or eleswhere someone suggested the Gospel of the Nazareans was the injeel yet it only exists in tiny fragments all of which can only be found in other writings - why is this do you think?

Tell me Hugo,

this so called "huge manuscript base" of yours, was at least one of them written by Jesus (as)?
or written by his disciples?
or when jesus (as) was alive?
or when his disciples were alive?

Also, I am sure others have explained to you in details with great length and proof and evidence how the qur'an was revealed and preserved in many other threads.
and yet, here again you are spewing filth and lies.

I don't even know why you are here.

Do you not have decency if not sincerity?
(should I remind you that you have been banned before? or did you just "forget" about that just as you "forget" about many aspects of Islam which have been explained to you again and again)

 

[IAmZamzam]

naidamar, what he's told me is that the "argues so as to learn about new points of view" or some such malarkey, even when he doesn't really believe in what he's arguing for. And what I've told you is that you'd do well to stop dignifying him with responses.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Have you read it? Let me share parts of it with you, and you tell me if you're willing to accept it as true:


I have no problem with this being the al-Injeel that Muslims want to claim is the true gospel of Jesus if you don't.

1. I never said that it was al-Injeel. I said that's the best guess we have. I might have even been wrong about it being the best guess.
2. If I can't trust the biased Christian translators of the Bible not to inject their biases into the translation to support their doctrines (and we could go on all day with examples of that), why should I trust these obviously Christian translators?
3. Is the quotation of al-Injeel from Koran 48:29 in that Gospel anywhere?

 

[IAmZamzam]

...there also would be absolutely no evidence (outside of Islamic writings) that Jesus ever made mention of Muhammad.

Once again, the Koran never even said whether or not that prophecy was written down anywhere, let alone in any extant Gospel. It just says he told some people that at some point. With his lips.

 

[Woodrow]

Yes it is true we are not able to agree but I have a huge manuscript base so I can feel confident about the Gospels but you have none and only a single witness to what you have. What I find strange is that Muslims seem ready to accept say the Gospel of Barnabus or eleswhere someone suggested the Gospel of the Nazareans was the injeel yet it only exists in tiny fragments all of which can only be found in other writings - why is this do you think?

In accordance with your last sentence:

why is this do you think?

Just my opinion and what I personally think.

We do know that the truth to mankind was revealed to all people of all nations. There have been numerous Prophets(PBUT) nearly all were ignored and forgotten about. But we do believe they existed. We do know at least 4 books have been revealed to mankind the Tauret, Zaboor, Injeel and Qur'an. the Qur'an is not a new revelation, it is a summation of all that was revealed in the past and not given for a single people of a specific time, but for all people of all times. We do have some degree of expectations that parts of the truth still exist in the remnants of the past. We do often feel that if we find something in any past writing that does not disagree from the Qur'an it could very well be from the old revelations. For this reason when we see Books such as the Gospel of Barnabas and fragments of the Gospel of the Nazarene, we do have a feeling it is from the Injeel although unprovable as such.

As far as us not having numerous documentations and rely on the revelation from one source, I disagree with that. Just my opinion there were and continue to be numerous Hafiz (people who have memorized the Qur'an) dating back to the time of Muhammad(PBUH) this oral record has remained constant and a Hafiz from any country will recite the same thing as a Hafiz from any other country. The Hafiz are sort of like a recording constantly being recopied onto new disks.

While the original oral source is from what Muhammad spoke we do believe that is sufficient and we have numerous recordings from the past that what we read in the Qur'an today, is exactly what came from the mouth ofMuhammad(PBUH) But Muhammad was not the source, he was the instrument used to convey the message given by Allaah(swt). The only issue is if the Qur'an is the genuine words of Allaah(swt) or the work of a human. For many reasons those of us who accept Islam are convinced it came from Allaah(swt).

I can only know why I personally am convinced, to do so would be another topic and probably lengthy, so for the moment I will simply say I am convinced the Qur'an is the actual word of Allaah(swt).

 

[Grace Seeker]

1. I never said that it was al-Injeel. I said that's the best guess we have. I might have even been wrong about it being the best guess.

I understand. I'm just sharing with you what I found when I searched under the title of the work you provided. I'm not even saying that it is the same work to which you were referring. These "lost" gospels often seem to be known by different names depending on who is reporting on them.

2. If I can't trust the biased Christian translators of the Bible not to inject their biases into the translation to support their doctrines (and we could go on all day with examples of that), why should I trust these obviously Christian translators?

Perhaps you would feel like you can't; I can understand that as well. But, if so, then I would suggest that at least the same level of skepticism should also be maintained with regard to those reports which, without providing any translation at all, purport to tell you that the work contains material that is in keeping with Islamic theology.

3. Is the quotation of al-Injeel from Koran 48:29 in that Gospel anywhere?

I didn't see anything like that. But it didn't have a way to search the document. I provided a link above if you want to check it out for yourself. As I said, it may be a completely different document by the same or similar name to that which your referred to. Perhaps you could provide us with a link to the document you were referencing, please?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Once again, the Koran never even said whether or not that prophecy was written down anywhere, let alone in any extant Gospel. It just says he told some people that at some point. With his lips.

Right. I get that. And in fact I expect that is more likely true than to do as so many try to do and force a document that they don't otherwise trust to be referring to Muhammad at all. Yet, I run into it over and over again, and even the attempt to do so on the part of Muslims makes no sense to me, let alone the supposed explainations that are provided for it.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Grace Seeker: I was only relaying a seemingly sensible theory by the folks at the main site of Understanding Islam, and they never said anything about any specific text being in accordance with Islamic theology. Indeed, with so very many centuries in which to become corrupt like all the non-"lost" books of the Bible, I don't know if I should even be surprised, and most of the time when historians say they're recovered a specific text what they really mean is that they have uncovered a particular unknown text, that happened to end up in the region and maybe be from roughly the right time period, which they presume to be that one specific text. It's not like they all gave themselves titles within the text, and there have been any number of different lost Gospels going by really the same title.

Here's the sweet and low down: nobody knows for sure what al-Injeel was, nobody really has any way of knowing (at least as yet), and nobody--repeat, nobody, Islamic or non-Islamic--that I have ever seen other than Christian evangelists or others arguing against Islam ever cares at all.

 

[IAmZamzam]

By the way, not all Muslims believe in the Gospel of Barnabas. I myself see many signs in it of poor understanding of Islamic doctrine, contradictions with Islamic doctrine, and anachronism.

 

[Grace Seeker]

We do have some degree of expectations that parts of the truth still exist in the remnants of the past. We do often feel that if we find something in any past writing that does not disagree from the Qur'an it could very well be from the old revelations. For this reason when we see Books such as the Gospel of Barnabas and fragments of the Gospel of the Nazarene, we do have a feeling it is from the Injeel although unprovable as such.

Woodrow, I get while these books would be attractive to you. For the same reason that Christians get excited when an osuary is found in Israel that appears to have the name James on it. We each think that we have maybe found a link to something of our past. We don't need it to prove our present faith, but still it would be nice to have.

My concern is that shouldn't one then put these "new" discoveries to critical analyses to determine if they really are links to the past or if they are just so many shiney things that attract (perhaps, more correctly, distract) our attention? I don't see that among but a very few of those who reference such finds here.

But as far as us not having numerous documentations and rely on the revelation from one source, I disagree with that. Just my opinion there were and continue to be numerous Hafiz (people who have memorized the Qur'an) dating back to the time of Muhammad(PBUH) this oral record has remained constant and a Hafiz from any country will recite the same thing as a Hafiz from any other country. The Hafiz are sort of like a recording constantly being recopied onto new disks.

Do the Hafiz memorize the Qur'an from listening to other people recite it in a continuous chain of reciters and only from hearing it recited? Or do they also employ reading the written text in the memorization process?

The only issue is if the Qur'an is the genuine words of Allaah(swt) or the work of a human. For many reasons those of us who accept Islam are convinced it came from Allaah(swt).

That certainly is the issue. Personally, I fail to see how the existence of Hafiz would be one of those substantiative reasons. But I'm sure you fail to see how the existence of the early church substantiates my belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Here's the sweet and low down: nobody knows for sure what al-Injeel was, nobody really has any way of knowing (at least as yet),

As far as this statement goes, we agree completely.

and nobody--repeat, nobody, Islamic or non-Islamic--that I have ever seen other than Christian evangelists or others arguing against Islam ever cares at all.

And I will tell you the only reason I care....it is because so often on here I find Muslims trying to tell me that they do know what was in the Injeel.

 

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, I get while these books would be attractive to you. For the same reason that Christians get excited when an osuary is found in Israel that appears to have the name James on it. We each think that we have maybe found a link to something of our past. We don't need it to prove our present faith, but still it would be nice to have.

we are in agreement here

My concern is that shouldn't one then put these "new" discoveries to critical analyses to determine if they really are links to the past or if they are just so many shiney things that attract (perhaps, more correctly, distract) our attention? I don't see that among but a very few of those who reference such finds here.

We still agree. Yes we should verify all things no matter how good they sound to us or how much we desire them to be true. But human nature being as it is, it is easy to overlook that we have failed to verify.

Do the Hafiz memorize the Qur'an from listening to other people recite it in a continuous chain of reciters and only from hearing it recited? Or do they also employ reading the written text in the memorization process?

While the written Qur'an can help. It is not possible to learn it as a hafiz from the written alone. It is essential to learn the Qur'an with the proper Tajweed(Pronunciation) which can not be done except from memorizing from oral renditions. In recent times this can be done from recordings,but for the most part it seems the accepted way is through a person who is Hafiz.

That certainly is the issue. Personally, I fail to see how the existence of Hafiz would be one of those substantiative reasons. But I'm sure you fail to see how the existence of the early church substantiates my belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

At least here we can understand why we both fail to see why we each place importance on different things..

 

[Insaanah]

While the written Qur'an can help. It is not possible to learn it as a hafiz from the written alone. It is essential to learn the Qur'an with the proper Tajweed (Pronunciation) which can not be done except from memorizing from oral renditions. In recent times this can be done from recordings,but for the most part it seems the accepted way is through a person who is Hafiz.

And, I would also add to this, regarding tajweed, that those who learn tajweed (correct articulation of letters and pronounciation - there are specific rules for the Qur'an that are not for ordinary Arabic text) and are qualified in tajweed (have a qualification known as an ijaazah), have a known chain going back to Allah. Not everyone who learns tajweed has an ijaazah.

To obtain an ijaazah, you must learn from a teacher who has an ijaazah, their teacher must have had an ijaazah, and so on.

An ijaazah requires reciting the whole complete Qur'an to someone with an ijaazah, with complete tajweed and excellent memorisation. To obtain an ijaazah is a great achievement, and honour from Allah. Upon getting the ijaazah, the haafith (memoriser of Qur'an) who has the ijaazah is now certified and approved to transmit the Qur'an and it's tajweed to others with the big responsibility of transmitting it as the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited it, with every single letter articulated from the correct point in the mouth/throat, and every word pronounced correctly.

For example, there is a 3 part book series called Tajweed Rules of the Qur'an, written by Kareema Carol Czerepinski. In her book, she shows her chain of transmission of tajweed. Each individual in the chain is named. I can't access my copy right now to scan in, and can't remember all the names, but they are listed in it, and it goes roughly like this:

Kareema Carol Czerepinski
Ayman Rushdi Swayd (her teacher, who is a famous tajweed teacher)
Ayman Rushdi Swayd's teacher (but it would have the teacher's name)
etc
etc
...
and so on
till it gets to
Student of one of the companions (it has the name)
One of the companions (it has the name)
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
Angel Gabriel (peace be upon him)
Allah

In the book, the chain rightfully starts with Allah at the top, and everyone else listed down from Him.

Peace.

 

[Hugo]

Tell me Hugo,
this so called "huge manuscript base" of yours, was at least one of them written by Jesus (as)? or written by his disciples?
or when jesus (as) was alive? or when his disciples were alive? Also, I am sure others have explained to you in details with great length and proof and evidence how the qur'an was revealed and preserved in many other threads.
and yet, here again you are spewing filth and lies.

where exactly have I entered filth or lies - I am here because I want to probe why you believe as you do and why you attack the Bible so often - is that not allowed since I or you just might be wrong so I am after the truth.

You say I don't have a gospel written by Jesus but you don't have a qu'rad written directly by God for it was dictated to Mohammad and he dictated it to others so just like the canonical gospels it is second hand and unless you think the language of God is Arabic then it is really no different than Jesus speaking Aramaic and the gospels in Greek - do you see the comparisons?

 

[Grace Seeker]

While the written Qur'an can help. It is not possible to learn it as a hafiz from the written alone. It is essential to learn the Qur'an with the proper Tajweed(Pronunciation) which can not be done except from memorizing from oral renditions. In recent times this can be done from recordings,but for the most part it seems the accepted way is through a person who is Hafiz.

And, I would also add to this, regarding tajweed, that those who learn tajweed (correct articulation of letters and pronounciation - there are specific rules for the Qur'an that are not for ordinary Arabic text) and are qualified in tajweed (have a qualification known as an ijaazah), have a known chain going back to Allah. Not everyone who learns tajweed has an ijaazah.

To obtain an ijaazah, you must learn from a teacher who has an ijaazah, their teacher must have had an ijaazah, and so on.

An ijaazah requires reciting the whole complete Qur'an to someone with an ijaazah, with complete tajweed and excellent memorisation. To obtain an ijaazah is a great achievement, and honour from Allah. Upon getting the ijaazah, the haafith (memoriser of Qur'an) who has the ijaazah is now certified and approved to transmit the Qur'an and it's tajweed to others with the big responsibility of transmitting it as the Prophet (peace be upon him) recited it, with every single letter articulated from the correct point in the mouth/throat, and every word pronounced correctly.

So, if I understand you correctly, if I was to go to a local mosque and take the Arabic classes teaching one to read the Qur'an there, and after learning how to read it were to go home with my Arabic text and the knowledge I learned with regard how to recite it from class and begin the work of memorizing it, that would not be sufficient to make me Hafiz. Is this what you are saying? I can only be Hafiz if I do my memory work by listening to another recite and then reciting myself?

 

[Woodrow]

So, if I understand you correctly, if I was to go to a local mosque and take the Arabic classes teaching one to read the Qur'an there, and after learning how to read it were to go home with my Arabic text and the knowledge I learned with regard how to recite it from class and begin the work of memorizing it, that would not be sufficient to make me Hafiz. Is this what you are saying? I can only be Hafiz if I do my memory work by listening to another recite and then reciting myself?

If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to have a reasonable concept of what it takes to be Hafiz. The final verification is that you can recite the entire Qur'an from memory and it will be identical to what is recited by any other hafiz. Mispronounce even one letter and you can not be considered hafiz.

There is no obligation for anybody to become hafiz. It has to be from the desire to be one and with the intent of doing so as Praise and thanks to Allaah(swt) With the aid of a tutor most memorize the Qur'an in 30-36 months. The average person seems to be capable of learning one Juz in slightly over a month. The Qur'an is made up of 30 Juz. Some who begin with attempting to become Hafiz stop after memorizing a few Juz. But the majority who begin do succeed in completing it.

 

[tango92]

If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to have a reasonable concept of what it takes to be Hafiz. The final verification is that you can recite the entire Qur'an from memory and it will be identical to what is recited by any other hafiz. Mispronounce even one letter and you can not be considered hafiz.

There is no obligation for anybody to become hafiz. It has to be from the desire to be one and with the intent of doing so as Praise and thanks to Allaah(swt) With the aid of a tutor most memorize the Qur'an in 30-36 months. The average person seems to be capable of learning one Juz in slightly over a month. The Qur'an is made up of 30 Juz. Some who begin with attempting to become Hafiz stop after memorizing a few Juz. But the majority who begin do succeed in completing it.

an important consideration is (i think) these estimates apply to modern day hufaaz. ie basically kids who go to school and go to the mosque for Hifz classes. in asia/middle east kids may be in full time education of pure hifz and begin school later. i think these kids finish much quicker than 3 yrs.

a hafiz from my mosque said he finished in 4-5 months. i cant remember exactly. but he was worked very hard, he had beautiful tajweed. i think he said he started at the age of 18.

 

[Ramadhan]

You say I don't have a gospel written by Jesus but you don't have a qu'rad written directly by God for it was dictated to Mohammad and he dictated it to others so just like the canonical gospels it is second hand and unless you think the language of God is Arabic then it is really no different than Jesus speaking Aramaic and the gospels in Greek - do you see the comparisons?

The qur'an was memorised and written as soon as each revelation was sent down.
Whether you believe it from God or not is different matter/issue.

Meanwhile, the gospels were not written/memorised during the time of Jesus pbuh or during the life of his disciples.

It is cunning for you to divert the issue, but it is very transparent and everyone here can see it.

Why not apply the same standard and be as critical to your own faith, hugo?

What are you afraid of? that you will find your faith false and Islam is the truth?

 

[Hugo]

The qur'an was memorised and written as soon as each revelation was sent down.
Whether you believe it from God or not is [\quote]
this cannot be entirely true because it may not have occurred for the early revelations. Also, we know the Qu'ran is an oral tradition because it has such a small vocabulary consistent with what would be normal for everyday speech but how do you account for the fact that although it is said that some 60 scribes were used that not a single record of that work survives and even among those 60 scribes and many others who memorised that not a single error occurred - so what standard are you wanting me to apply other than incredulity - please say and then we can compare. This is important since one of us might just have the truth and I am as keen to know it but ultimately it's the message that matters would you not agree