A question for Muslims concerning the Injil (Gospels)?

[Kouyate42]

I’m hoping a Muslim on this forum can clear this one up for me.

In my Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation and commentary on the Qur’an, reference is made to various Biblical verses and pieces of Christian theology by Ali in support of the Qur’anic position on the position of Jesus. I’ve seen similar arguments from the Bible used on many Islamic sites.

My question is this: if the Gospels that exist in their present form are being used to support the Islamic position, how can you safely know what was part of the Injiil (the original Gospel) and what was the corruptions of later times? How can a Muslim confidently assert Biblical passages in support of Islam given the doubt assigned in Islam to the present Gospels?

 

[noobio]

how can you safely know what was part of the Injiil (the original Gospel) and what was the corruptions of later times? How can a Muslim confidently assert Biblical passages in support of Islam given the doubt assigned in Islam to the present Gospels?

Im assuming muslims will answer by saying, whatever doesn’t contridict the Quran is not corrupted.

 

[hamba2han]

This question is applicable not just to the Injil, it also applies to other ancient scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita as well.

Not all parts of earlier scriptures have been corrupted and they have indeed retained some of their profound truths which could have come only from Almighty God Himself.

The great news is that Muslims have been given the Furqan i.e. the Criterion by which to filter out the corrupted segments of earlier scriptures from the profound truths that are undoubtedly found in them.

This Furqan is of course the noble Qur’an.

Think of the difference between earlier scriptures and the Qur’an in the following terms:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/948/15022240.JPG http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/water-jug.jpg

Which of the two water containers would you want to drink the water from?.. If you pick the second container, then you have indeed chosen to believe in the truth of the Qur’an.

 

[CompSciGuy]

This question is applicable not just to the Injil, it also applies to other ancient scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita as well.

Not all parts of earlier scriptures have been corrupted and they have indeed retained some of their profound truths which could have come only from Almighty God Himself.

The great news is that Muslims have been given the Furqan i.e. the Criterion by which to filter out the corrupted segments of earlier scriptures from the profound truths that are undoubtedly found in them.

This Furqan is of course the noble Qur’an.

Think of the difference between earlier scriptures and the Qur’an in the following terms:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/948/15022240.JPG http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/water-jug.jpg

Which of the two water containers would you want to drink the water from?.. If you pick the second container, then you have indeed chosen to believe in the truth of the Qur’an.

Why do you believe this “furqan?” You need to have reason to believe something. Any religion that re-hashes what’s taught in another religion is to be doubted. The Christians should know very well what Jesus taught. It isn’t up to MHMD to rewrite history and the gospels.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Perhaps, with all due respect, I could turn it around on you. I believe that the Quran is actually a corruption of what the gospels and the old testament teach. They came later, were written by one man, conflicted greatly with the old teachings, show obvious signs of agenda, this is clearly corrupted text.

The Christian Bible is very different. Not only have we preserved the New Testament, we also have a preserved Old Testament and have made no changes to it whatsoever.

 

[MontChevalier]

Perhaps, with all due respect, I could turn it around on you. I believe that the Quran is actually a corruption of what the gospels and the old testament teach. They came later, were written by one man, conflicted greatly with the old teachings, show obvious signs of agenda, this is clearly corrupted text.

The Christian Bible is very different. Not only have we preserved the New Testament, we also have a preserved Old Testament and have made no changes to it whatsoever.

No changes? What about the protestant bibles? The mormon bibles? The Jehova’s Witnesses Bible? Aren’t these changes to the Bible?

Just putting that out there.

-MontChevalier

 

[Kouyate42]

Why do you believe this “furqan?” You need to have reason to believe something. Any religion that re-hashes what’s taught in another religion is to be doubted. The Christians should know very well what Jesus taught. It isn’t up to MHMD to rewrite history and the gospels.

It could be argued by some that Christianity was merely a rehashed version of Judaism.

Perhaps, with all due respect, I could turn it around on you. I believe that the Quran is actually a corruption of what the gospels and the old testament teach. They came later, were written by one man, conflicted greatly with the old teachings, show obvious signs of agenda, this is clearly corrupted text.

The Christian Bible is very different. Not only have we preserved the New Testament, we also have a preserved Old Testament and have made no changes to it whatsoever.

Can you prove any of this?

No changes? What about the protestant bibles? The mormon bibles? The Jehova’s Witnesses Bible? Aren’t these changes to the Bible?

Just putting that out there.

-MontChevalier

In the case of the JW Bible, it’s more a question of translation technique than actual Scripture.

 

[CompSciGuy]

It could be argued by some that Christianity was merely a rehashed version of Judaism.

Christianity doesn’t change anything from Judaism, it claims to be a fulfillment of Judaism. It could be wrong, could be right, but it doesn’t change the Old Testament.

Can you prove any of this?

For the old testament, look at the dead sea scrolls. For the New Testament, we have pieces of the gospels that date back to the 1st century. We have gospel writings that are dated very early. They haven’t been changed when you compare them to the modern ones. If you’re asking me to prove that MHMD’s message was corrupt, well, if you have these writings that have been taught for thousands of years and we have early manuscripts, and then some guy comes along and says “you’ve got it wrong, your message is corrupted, here is what you should believe” then that guy is the one who needs to prove hwat he is saying, not the Christians/Jews. If this is Allah’s truth, and Allah is all-powerful, then there should be evidence that it is Allah’s truth outside of MHMD’s own words. There is no reason for me to believe MHMD or the Quran over the historically known Christian or Jewish prophets/apostles and their writings.

Originally Posted by MontChevalier View Post
No changes? What about the protestant bibles? The mormon bibles? The Jehova’s Witnesses Bible? Aren’t these changes to the Bible?

Just putting that out there.

-MontChevalier

The Church originally agreed upon ONE canon of scripture. As for the Protestants, the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we can give them the same charge as the Muslims. Given the original writings over the book of Mormon, I’ll take the original writings, chances are I’ll be better off with them.

 

[hamba2han]

Why do you believe this “furqan?” You need to have reason to believe something. Any religion that re-hashes what’s taught in another religion is to be doubted. The Christians should know very well what Jesus taught. It isn’t up to MHMD to rewrite history and the gospels.

I answered a similar question which was asked in another thread a few months ago.

Anyhow, here is the reason why Muslims believe in the truth of the Furqan i.e. the noble Qur’an.

The Qur’an that he brought to the world is really the ultimate proof that Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of God.

Is it difficult to identify a play by Shakespeare… or a musical composition by Mozart… or a painting by Picasso?

I do not think that it would be very difficult for a connoisseur of the arts to do this because every one of these great master craftsmen of their respective trades would leave a distinctive mark in all of their masterpieces which would be identifiable as coming only from them and no one else.

Islam teaches that the Qur’an is one such ‘Masterpiece’ and there is indeed a way to test and ascertain whether or not it does come from the greatest ‘Master’ there is.

The following are all the relevant posts from the thread for anyone wishing to determine for themselves the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth verifying the proof of the divine Prophet-hood of Muhammad (pbuh):

1, 13, 34, 65, 126, 131, [136](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php? p=2105491&postcount=136), 144, 147, 162, 191, 238, 253, 258, 260, 263, 278, 301, 302, 319, 323, 336, 351, 352, 356, 361, 369

And from other threads: 1, 2, 3

 

[Kouyate42]

Perhaps, with all due respect, I could turn it around on you. I believe that the Quran is actually a corruption of what the gospels and the old testament teach. They came later, were written by one man, conflicted greatly with the old teachings, show obvious signs of agenda, this is clearly corrupted text.

The Christian Bible is very different. Not only have we preserved the New Testament, we also have a preserved Old Testament and have made no changes to it whatsoever.

Wrong. There’s copies of the Qur’an dating back centuries which can be checked alongside any modern Qur’an and found to be completely unchanged. Look up the Uthman Quran which was made only 19 years after the death of the Prophet.

As for the Bible, it’s got huge issues in that the oldest surviving complete Bible we possess is the Codex Sinaiticus, which was written some 350 years AFTER Jesus’ death, Earlier frangments exist, but they’re precisely that- fragments. And then there’s issues over whether the Bible was deliberately edited to blot out embarassing, improbable or contradictory passages and books. Gospel of Thomas anyone?

I’m not Muslim, nor am I biased towards Islam. I’m just making a point.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Wrong. There’s copies of the Qur’an dating back centuries which can be checked alongside any modern Qur’an and found to be completely unchanged. Look up the Uthman Quran which was made only 19 years after the death of the Prophet.

I’m not arguing that the Quran itself has changed, I am arguing that what the Quran says is not true, is a corrupted version of what the original writings of the gospels/OT say and thus there’s no real reason to believe it.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Is it difficult to identify a play by Shakespeare… or a musical composition by Mozart… or a painting by Picasso?

I do not think that it would be very difficult for a connoisseur of the arts to do this because every one of these great master craftsmen of their respective trades would leave a distinctive mark in all of their masterpieces which would be identifiable as coming only from them and no one else.

Islam teaches that the Qur’an is one such ‘Masterpiece’ and there is indeed a way to test and ascertain whether or not it does come from the greatest ‘Master’ there is.

The following are all the relevant posts from the thread for anyone wishing to determine for themselves the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth verifying the proof of the divine Prophet-hood of Muhammad (pbuh):

1, 13, 34, 65, 126, 131, [136](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php? p=2105491&postcount=136), 144, 147, 162, 191, 238, 253, 258, 260, 263, 278, 301, 302, 319, 323, 336, 351, 352, 356, 361, 369

And from other threads: 1, 2, 3

By “Master” you mean from Allah? Here’s the issue: the reason we don’t doubt that a Shakespearean play comes from Shakespeare is that there aren’t hundreds of people throughout history who claim to be the author of MacBeth, or Romeo and Juliet, or his other plays, nor are there people who come and say “this play has been corrupted, I have the real version here.” However this is not true with religion. In religion we have many people who claim to be prophets and many of what these people say conflict with each other.

 

[CompSciGuy]

As for the Bible, it’s got huge issues in that the oldest surviving complete Bible we possess is the Codex Sinaiticus, which was written some 350 years AFTER Jesus’ death, Earlier frangments exist, but they’re precisely that- fragments. And then there’s issues over whether the Bible was deliberately edited to blot out embarassing, improbable or contradictory passages and books. Gospel of Thomas anyone?

I’m not Muslim, nor am I biased towards Islam. I’m just making a point.

You would consider ‘gospels’ which were written by gnostics as possibly accepted gospels at one point? You ought to read into this, it’s really not as problematic as you think it is. Many people who quote the “gospel” of Thomas, etc. are using academic dishonesty.

 

[FaithJoy]

. And then there’s issues over whether the Bible was deliberately edited to blot out embarassing, improbable or contradictory passages and books. Gospel of Thomas anyone?

I’m not Muslim, nor am I biased towards Islam. I’m just making a point.

What do you mean “over whether the Bible was deliberately edited”? Sounds like you are unsure about this? Why make a statement like that with nothing to back it up? Why call yourself a Christian when you believe the Gospels are false and the Quran is true? Be truthful, why make statements like this.

 

[Kouyate42]

What do you mean “over whether the Bible was deliberately edited”? Sounds like you are unsure about this? Why make a statement like that with nothing to back it up? Why call yourself a Christian when you believe the Gospels are false and the Quran is true? Be truthful, why make statements like this.

I don’t hold the Qur’an to be true and the Bible false, I’m not a Muslim in care you haven’t noticed.

And a basic knowledge of history tells you that the history of the New Testament is anything but straightforward. Even looking at a moden Bible, you’ll often find that some manuscripts often don’t have certain verses/words in them. In the case of some, some entire CHAPTERS are missing.

The Church may be right and the issue of whether the Bible being edited may be a false one. But until someone presents to me a solid case proving this, I cannot hold it to be true. The burden of proof falls upon YOU as a Bible believer to prove your case in this instance.

 

[jakasaki]

Wrong. There’s copies of the Qur’an dating back centuries which can be checked alongside any modern Qur’an and found to be completely unchanged. Look up the Uthman Quran which was made only 19 years after the death of the Prophet.

I'm not Muslim, nor am I biased towards Islam. I'm just making a point.

A koran was found during a dig in Yemen - It is clearly quite a bit different from the koran they have today, which as you point out - it’s Uthmans koran.

Study up on the Yemen koran found.

 

[Kouyate42]

A koran was found during a dig in Yemen - It is clearly quite a bit different from the koran they have today, which as you point out - it’s Uthmans koran.

Study up on the Yemen koran found.

The Yemeni Qur’ans could be anything from copies of the Qur’an with minor (or major) spelling and grammatical differences (seeing as even now Arabic word forms differ between country) or simply a Qur’an made and copied before the Uthman Qur’an (the standard Qur’anic text) filtered down.

 

[lyrikal]

I don’t hold the Qur’an to be true and the Bible false, I’m not a Muslim in care you haven’t noticed.

And a basic knowledge of history tells you that the history of the New Testament is anything but straightforward. Even looking at a moden Bible, you’ll often find that some manuscripts often don’t have certain verses/words in them. In the case of some, some entire CHAPTERS are missing.

The Church may be right and the issue of whether the Bible being edited may be a false one. But until someone presents to me a solid case proving this, I cannot hold it to be true. The burden of proof falls upon YOU as a Bible believer to prove your case in this instance.

I can see how this could be a problem for Protestants. Catholicism is not a religion of the book. We hold to the Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to the fullness of truth. Even if we didn’t have a Bible, our Traditions would be passed on through word of mouth from century to century. The Holy Spirit is capable of guiding such a passing on of Tradition without corruption.

Here is something from St. Irenaeus who is an Early Church Father who wrote in 2nd Century AD:

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Source: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

 

[CompSciGuy]

I don’t hold the Qur’an to be true and the Bible false, I’m not a Muslim in care you haven’t noticed.

And a basic knowledge of history tells you that the history of the New Testament is anything but straightforward. Even looking at a moden Bible, you’ll often find that some manuscripts often don’t have certain verses/words in them. In the case of some, some entire CHAPTERS are missing.

The Church may be right and the issue of whether the Bible being edited may be a false one. But until someone presents to me a solid case proving this, I cannot hold it to be true. The burden of proof falls upon YOU as a Bible believer to prove your case in this instance.

First we have to ask, what are you trying to say about the gospels, that they are inaccurate because there are verses missing from some manuscripts? Are you implying that text has been added to it over time, taking away from the accuracy? How do you not know that it is simply a matter of how the text was copied? There isn’t any real evidence that the Bible was edited. If you believe the Bible may be edited then the proof actually does fall on you. You brought up the gospel of Thomas. This is easy, it is a Gnostic gospel and was written long after the original gospels. The fact that other people tried to write fake gospels does not take away from the inaccuracy of the original gospels. They were protected for hundreds of years in those days. You have been listening to too many anti-christian sources who use poor scholasticism. If I were to write many fake versions of the constitution and add entire amendments and then pass it off as real, does that make the real constitution less reliable or valid?

 

[CompSciGuy]

I answered a similar question which was asked in another thread a few months ago.

Anyhow, here is the reason why Muslims believe in the truth of the Furqan i.e. the noble Qur’an.

The Qur’an that he brought to the world is really the ultimate proof that Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of God.

Is it difficult to identify a play by Shakespeare… or a musical composition by Mozart… or a painting by Picasso?

I do not think that it would be very difficult for a connoisseur of the arts to do this because every one of these great master craftsmen of their respective trades would leave a distinctive mark in all of their masterpieces which would be identifiable as coming only from them and no one else.

Islam teaches that the Qur’an is one such ‘Masterpiece’ and there is indeed a way to test and ascertain whether or not it does come from the greatest ‘Master’ there is.

The following are all the relevant posts from the thread for anyone wishing to determine for themselves the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth verifying the proof of the divine Prophet-hood of Muhammad (pbuh):

1, 13, 34, 65, 126, 131, [136](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php? p=2105491&postcount=136), 144, 147, 162, 191, 238, 253, 258, 260, 263, 278, 301, 302, 319, 323, 336, 351, 352, 356, 361, 369

And from other threads: 1, 2, 3

Many of your claims of inerrancy of the Quran more or less amount to “the Quran doesn’t contradict itself, therefore it is true.” That isn’t a reason to believe in the Quran. I can make the following statements:

1. Kangaroos are reptiles.
2. All reptiles are cold-blooded.
3. Kangaroos are cold blooded.

Notice that none of the statements contradict each other. But of all three only one of them is true (number 2) and the other two are false.