Some Questions About Isa (as)

[greenhill]

I forgot to add I don't understand the motive behind Muslim's trying to limit the scope of Jesus' message. I suspect it has to do with the idea that the Quran is meant for all and that therefore Jesus' must have been a regional message, but interestingly enough I am not aware of anything explicit in the Quran that indicates the "Injil" was only meant for the Jews.

I won't try to explain this as it would take too long. But in brief, It is the 1 God, the message is the same from Adam (a.s) throughout the ages to all prophet (peace be upon them all) and those messengers with the Scriptures, the Torah, the Psalms, the Bible and the Qur'an. Why did the Jews stop at the Torah, and the Christians with the Bible? So with every new revelation that came, the followers of the Word of God should have accepted and incorporated it into their life.

In my experience Muslims are for the most part very diligent and careful when it comes to interpreting the Quran. A holistic approach is taken, hadith is consulted for additional support, and the soundness of argument is based logically. I don't understand why then the diligence seems to wane when addressing the sacred text of another faith. I understand it may not be part of your religion, but just as a matter of correctness the same approach should be applied.

The problem as I see it is that the Bible is not quite the same. If anything, it would be more closely associated to hadiths as it is an account of what happened and was said written by people (an interpretation) of what happened, or a narrative of what happened. The Qur'an on the other hand are memorized words of Allah, written and compiled within the lifetime of the prophet which exist until today. Translations are made using the original text as opposed to translated words from millennia passed. And the hadiths are actions and advises from the prophet pbuh that complements the understanding of the Qur'an. These two sources are not available in the Christian's faith so the same approach cannot be undertaken.

So when a muslim were to compare statements from the Bible, they only have the Qur'an to refer to. Although muslims believe that the Bible in its original form were the words of Allah, but the copies we currently have in circulation have been tampered with to the point of us (muslims and Christians) having this gap in belief. How could we then take into account what is written in the Bible except to believe that what Jesus spoke was true, but not necessarily what evolved from his teachings today. In another word, if we wanted to know what the context of the Bible was, we can get it from the Qur'an. Only difference is that it was told by a different prophet and that it also included laws that govern community living.


eace:

 

[Sojourn]

Peace be with you,

I won't try to explain this as it would take too long. But in brief, It is the 1 God, the message is the same from Adam (a.s) throughout the ages to all prophet (peace be upon them all) and those messengers with the Scriptures, the Torah, the Psalms, the Bible and the Qur'an.

But the messages are not the same. Compare for example the Old Testament depiction of the afterlife or resurrection. You'll discover something startling, the Jews didn't have a concept of Heaven as you would understand, rather all a person could hope for was a gloomy place called Sheol. I think you'd also be startled to discover that the Jew were uncertain of a resurrection, and were debating it right up to Jesus' time. Of course, Christians accept a resurrection because Christ was the first to do so. And we believe in Heaven because he made it available and promised it to us. But why does Islam simply take heaven and resurrection for granted? I'm not looking for an answer, I'm simply pointing out that there are significant differences.

Why did the Jews stop at the Torah, and the Christians with the Bible? So with every new revelation that came, the followers of the Word of God should have accepted and incorporated it into their life.

Why do Jews and Christians read the books of the previous prophets but Muslims only read what Muhammad revealed? I honestly don't know!

The problem as I see it is that the Bible is not quite the same. If anything, it would be more closely associated to hadiths as it is an account of what happened and was said written by people (an interpretation) of what happened, or a narrative of what happened. The Qur'an on the other hand are memorized words of Allah, written and compiled within the lifetime of the prophet which exist until today. Translations are made using the original text as opposed to translated words from millennia passed. And the hadiths are actions and advises from the prophet pbuh that complements the understanding of the Qur'an. These two sources are not available in the Christian's faith so the same approach cannot be undertaken.

I agree the nature of the Bible as understood by Christians is not the same as the nature of the Quran as understood by Muslims. Jesus for one did not reveal any book that an angel revealed to him, and then he passed down verbatim to his followers. Instead, he is the Word that give life, and the Gospel is about his teachings, works, and most importantly death and resurrection. The Bible is the work of God through the Church. Jesus' life was recorded within living memory of his existence, but in a way unlike the Quran. Again, there was no angel dictating to the Evangelists what to write down, instead these men were inspired by God, such that even though God is the ultimate author the texts still retain the characteristics of their human authors.

Now you mention something which I will only mention disagreement with, namely that you have the "original text" of the Qu'ran.

So when a muslim were to compare statements from the Bible, they only have the Qur'an to refer to. Although muslims believe that the Bible in its original form were the words of Allah, but the copies we currently have in circulation have been tampered with to the point of us (muslims and Christians) having this gap in belief. How could we then take into account what is written in the Bible except to believe that what Jesus spoke was true, but not necessarily what evolved from his teachings today. In another word, if we wanted to know what the context of the Bible was, we can get it from the Qur'an. Only difference is that it was told by a different prophet and that it also included laws that govern community living.

The answer is rather simple, the Bible is not the corrupt text Muslims believe. Now part of this belief is theological, and so there's nothing I can really do that will convince a Muslim otherwise. --- There's a lot that could be said about this, but we'll have to stop here for now.


Pax et Bonum

 

[Shasid]

Why do Jews and Christians read the books of the previous prophets but Muslims only read what Muhammad revealed? I honestly don't know!

Because the Qur'an says that the other scriptures has been corrupted by the scribes and Allah (swt) says that rabbis was entrusted the Protection of the Torah etc.. Your statement:"Jews and Christians read the books of the previous prophets". Muslims don't want to read books written by any Prophet at all.The difference between Islam and Christianity is when the Qur'an says that the Torah was revealed Musa 'Alayhi Salam and the Injil to 'Isa 'Alayhi Salam, The Qur'an does not speak about books written many years after the Prophets as some Christians assume and then they want to prove from the Qur'an that the Bible is uncorrupted. But they're wrong!

The Qur'an has been memorized by million of Muslims around the world. But can I say the same for the Old or the New testament? No!
Have some people memorized the whole new testament? Not in English, but in greek? have they?

Secondly your statement that the Qur'an was revealed by Muhammad (saw) (Naudhubillah), the Qur'an gives an open challenge to humanity. 20 million Christian Arabs live in Saudi. Ask them to produce a Surah. The shortest Surah is Surah Al-Kwather.

 

[Shasid]

Now you mention something which I will only mention disagreement with, namely that you have the "original text" of the Qu'ran.

You can disagree with whatever you want. You've the right to that.

The Bible you have is not from any original text. The texts today are not based on original MSS but rather from copies of copies of copies of copies and remember that all these copies were written by hand and during the copying, changes were made.

The NT was written by Christians for Christians ; it was moreover written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and the style of writing (with the exception, possibly, of the Apocalypse) was that of current literary composition. There has been no real break in the continuity of the Greek-speaking Church and we find accordingly that few real blunders of writing are met with in the leading types of the extant texts. This state of things has not prevented variations; but they are not for the most part accidental. An overwhelming majority of the 'various readings' of the MSS of the NT were from the very first intentional alterations. The NT in very early times had no canonical authority, and alterations and additions were actually made where they seemed improvements
(Encyclopedia Biblica (Vol. 4. p. 4980)

"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
"The most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era"(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).


"the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation"
(Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781


"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

 

[MustafaMc]

I'm being facetious of course, but the point is, no matter what a scholar says, Muslims must out of theological necessity accept that parts are preserved, even if scholars agree it was supposedly invented (eg virgin birth, Zechariah, etc).

I as a Muslim and previously as a Christian have read the NT. There are portions of the NT, particularly the gospels, that I do not reject as being fabricated, but neither do I accept them as unadulterated revelation. I definitely do not endorse Muslims reading the Bible for guidance for it is difficult to glean the wheat from the chaff. It is an irrefutable fact that the message that Jesus brought to the Jews was not preserved intact, in fact even the Lord's Prayer is not preserved verbatim between Matthew and Luke. Using this short passage as an example, how is one to know what has been added or deleted from what Jesus actually said. In stark contrast, there is only one version of surah al-Fatiha that is recited in prayer at least 17 times a day by every Muslim and identically so around the world.

 

[Sojourn]

So the person who recites the Warsh version of aura Fatiha prays the same verses as someone praying the Hafs? How do we know if God revealed that Bismillah or not?

 

[MustafaMc]

Touche', you got me there. I include the Basmallah for each surah I recite during salah, but not all Muslims do.

 

[Sojourn]

But because there is some difference of opinion on this, I don't think the Qur'an can be disregarded. The same goes for the bible, in my opinion.

 

[Muhammad]

So the person who recites the Warsh version of aura Fatiha prays the same verses as someone praying the Hafs?

Perhaps you've been reading the words of Jochen Katz, a Christian missionary who claimed that Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'ât are different 'versions' of the Qur'an. Such people thrive on the misquoting of references and juggling of facts. The truth of the matter is,

It is a common fallacy amongst non-muslims to make the mistake of confusing the authentic Qira'ât with variants, when the reality is they are all authentic recitations of the same verse revealed to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself, and transmitted from him to us through mutawâtir chains of transmission. They are not 'variants' as they do not arise from textual uncertainty.

Back to the Bible - you will have a difficult time trying to convince anyone of its textual integrity:

How do we know if God revealed that Bismillah or not?

The Bismillah is a verse of the Qur'an [27:30], so there's no doubt it is a revealed verse. How does this compare to entire Books in the Bible being thrown out?!

 

[MustafaMc]

Perhaps you've been reading the words of Jochen Katz, a Christian missionary who claimed that Hafs and Warsh Qirâ'ât are different 'versions' of the Qur'an. Such people thrive on the misquoting of references and juggling of facts.

Jazak Allahu khair for making this clear. I thought he was talking about reciting the Basmallah, or not during salah.

 

[Abz2000]

Assalamu'alaikum wr wb,
regarding the bismillah in surah fatihah, it seems some scholars included it as part in order to tally the seven oft epeated verses as mentioned in surah hijr verse 87, and indeed surah fatihah are the seven most often repeated verses a believer recites every day, one would need to look critically at the last two/three verses to see if the last verse in context of the one before it is one verse or two (Allah knows best). Before anyone gets dizzy consider that it is evident that the quran is a recitation and emphasis is placed on reciting and understanding the message in spirit and in context, not on counting commas and apostrophies as can be seen in the fact that recitations originally existed in different arab dialects to which the prophet pbuh did not seem to have an objection, and that it was even originally revealed in makkan and madinan dialects, it was only standardised into the language of the companions due to concern that it may change beyond recognition.
And if one wanted to argue that it is therefore not the word of God, theyd have to concede that everything in the bible is a fabrication since the israelite prophets didnt speak greek, the language in which the NT manuscripts exist. (and i myself dont believe that everything that exists in the bible is false, ths quran was at least restored to the original dialects as memorized by
The companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and from what was retained by hafsa may Allah be pleased with her.

Back to the original subject.
It is a fact that Jesus pbuh didnt ever come to bring a new law, just to fulfill adherence to the law of the lawgiven Prophet before him and bring it out of text alone and into actualization.
Earlier it was the law revealed to Musa (pbuh) that he came to strengthen and resolve differences in, and Musa (pbuh) was sent to the children of Israel.

Another task he was entrusted with was to give glad tidings of The Prophet to come after him, The Prophet who would bring a new law to the whole world is mentioned throughout the previous scriptures including the old and new testaments.
Anyone who has read the new testament carefully would know that the caliphate was about to be transferred from jerusalem and to a different nation. Google " jerusalem hen brood wings nation fruits kjv"

The scriptures explicitly tell us that when this universal decree comes He will no longer be called the God of israel alone but the God of the whole world.
Isaiah 54 makes references to the lines of abraham and more...

Finally it is an undeniable fact in islam the jesus pbuh is to again strengthen the universal law and not to bring a new one, and he is to fulfil it in actualization and not just text to the whole world.

So yes, he WAS sent to the children of israel whose progress and stumblings were to be an example to the whole world (the quran makes more referencez to musa and the children of israel than any other prophet or nation),
And yes; he IS still alive and shall fulfil the universal law to the whole planet until submission is to Almighty God, not to priests, pharisees, scholars or politicians.

Let us not fall for the divisive trick, he was sent to israel alone, and israel was an example (shotcomings and progress) to the nations after them, the caliphate was transferred, and he again comes to bring it to the whole planet by God's mercy.
His main task was and shall be to give tidings and to settle differences concerning those things which people dispute.
And he judges by the law of God which he receives, not brings.

It always was and is ISLAM - SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF GOD.

Sir,
my concern is not whether God is on our side;
My greatest concern is to be on God's side,
for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln

(my post is probably haphazard, typing on a phone so can see a few lines only - apologies)