A question for Muslims concerning the Injil (Gospels)?

[Kouyate42]

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?

Even within the canonical Gospels which are present in the modern Bible there are errors, inconsistencies and ‘dead’ passages which seem to be extra to the text. One prime example is some passage which mentions in one sentence that the disciples with Jesus entered Jericho, and the next sentence has them LEAVING Jericho. Now, there seems little point in having this detail left in the source text UNLESS a) there is a missing passage or B) the passage was miscopied. Seems likely that there is a missing passage which was inserted between these two sentences which filled the gap.

And in the case of some early manuscripts, some entire chapters, as I’ve said before, are missing. In the case of some passages, they were passages critical to keeping Gospel harmony or promoting certain ideas which later became mainstream Christian belief. Similarly, without the Gospel of Thomas being included, what happened to the Shepherd of Hermas book in the Bible, considered canonical by some early scholars?

I’m not talking here about a minor spelling error or having a slightly different phrasing here and there, I’m talking about major contradictions in the Gospel story.

Here’s an essay which deals with this: awitness.org/nt/ntvary.html

Take off the faith glasses for a moment and think about this logically. Neither the Bible or Qur’an are perfect.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

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?

Guess they’d probably go with the rwo source theory. Generally highly regarded in academic circles.
Read Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes
Peace

 

[Marybeloved]

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:

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.

I had just posted this comment below on an older thread before I came across this one. I think it’s just as appropriate here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8379232#post8379232

To be a genuine Christian, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, one has to be convinced of that Jesus claimed his own Divinity, proven by his incarnation, life, miracles, death on the cross, resurrection, ascension, second coming. It doesn’t matter what group they belong to, when someone says they believe these things as fact, I know they are Christian fundamentally.

Christians know that if these things are not true, their faith is false. That is the truth we believe in (The person of Jesus is our “quran”) and Our witnesses as to that truth, our “prophets” and “messengers” are the apostles. Some of their witness, whether by their hand or the hand of their disciples, are written down in what we call the new Testament. We know that if they “the witnesses” were lying, our faith falls. We have a clear understanding of this…you see it’s simple reason.

I never met or spoke to Christ, I didn’t witness anything of his life at all. All I know about him, I’ve learned from the testimony of the Apostles, as handed down by our faith, written and preserved in our sacred tradition. That’s why Christian apologists, focus on the apostles, the corroborating evidence of their testimonies (as well as of the other Christian witnesses who were not apostles) from Jewish and pagan sources of their day, their very horrific martyrdoms as well as that of all who claimed to have witnessed Christ’s death and saw him resurrected etc etc. We understand the implications of the credibility or lack thereof of the primary witnesses. We are not scared of facing this truth and our apologists from the beginning have proven to be up to the task. This is the simple thing Muslims don’t get and what I believe the OP was asking on this thread.

No Muslim was witness to Islam’s “revelation” apart from Mohammed. No one saw Gabriel or spoke to him, or any of the other claims of Mohammed, his going to heaven, flight to Jerusalem etc, not even his closest companions or wives. All they ever witnessed was Mohammed giving them “recitations” little verses here and there on many different occasions over a 23 year period. “Recitations” that were handed to him by an entity nobody could verify in any way. If Mohammed lied about these experiences, Islam falls. Again, simple application of reason.

To be Christian, I must believe the apostles, to be convinced of the truth of Islam/quran, I must first believe Mohammed NOT the quran!! Unless I first believe Mohammed was exactly who he claimed to be, a “prophet”, a “messenger of Allah”, I have no reason to and cannot accept his supposed message-the Quran! The truth of the quran depends on the truth of Mohammed’s prophethood, NOT the other way around. If that remains unproven, the quran becomes nothing but a collection of stories, hymns, poems and prayers from 7th Century Arabia with multiple origins in Arabian Jewish and gnostic Christianity influences and several pagan Arabian sects, religions and customs.

Muslims must show that Mohammed was a prophet, not claim that the quran is its own miracle, as if this were a self evident truth like pointing to the sun and saying “I believe that is the sun”. Further, they cannot point to the quran’s teachings, like some do, to belief in one God. The quran has no copyright on this truth. It’s been taught even in African traditional religions, leave alone Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, ancient chinese religion etc. If it were exclusive to Islam, the matter would be simple. Demonstrating simply from reason that God is one, I’d have to join the religion that taught this. But since Islam simply adopted a belief that long preceded it, that’s no reason to become a muslim- Why not become a Jew or Zoroastrian? or just follow my own conscience and reason as to what is right? No, to chose Islam, I have to believe in Muhammed this is what distinguishes this faith from the others.

This is what the Jews recognized when they asked, very reasonably, for a sign that Mohammed was a prophet, earning thereafter his everlasting hatred when he could procure no such thing. In the OT when God gave messages to prophets that no one else witnessed, he confirmed the prophets with “miracles”. Again, simple reasoning. He gave a sign that everyone knew was beyond the claimed prophet, this was God’s own “witness” to that person’s claims. Mohammed expected the Jews to just accept his incredible claims, “just like that” like the Muslims had done and continue to do to the present age- To accept it just because Mohammed said it came from God-this and this alone is the whole basis for Islam as a religion- they believe in Mohammed’s claims, without any corroboration for them whatsoever- from anyone. That’s why criticizing him elicits more craziness than criticizing Allah himself.

 

[Kouyate42]

No Muslim was witness to Islam’s “revelation” apart from Mohammed. No one saw Gabriel or spoke to him, or any of the other claims of Mohammed, his going to heaven, flight to Jerusalem etc, not even his closest companions or wives. All they ever witnessed was Mohammed giving them “recitations” little verses here and there on many different occasions over a 23 year period. “Recitations” that were handed to him by an entity nobody could verify in any way. If Mohammed lied about these experiences, Islam falls. Again, simple application of reason.

This could equally be argued for Jesus. Most, if not all of what we know of His life and death comes from one source. The ancient sources outside of the Bible are few and far between, and are subject to intense criticism as to their validity. Indeed, from what I can tell of my own study of the ancient references to Jesus such as Tacitus, many are meant to be forgeries or later additions by (Christian) copyists.

As to Jesus Himself, the entire premise of the Christian faith relies on believing Jesus to be the Son of God. Now all we have is the words of Jesus to rely on and his own proclamations in the Bible as to the truth of this claim, which again cannot be verified in any way, recorded well after the fact by people who likely never actually met Jesus in person.

You’re doing what is known as special pleading- the same logic is applied to both Islam AND Christianity. But because YOU believe in one, you’re making some exceptions for it.

Also, a note of martyrs- people dying for a cause is NOT a sign of its validity. There have been many cults and incidents where people have died for a cause which can be viewed as false.

To be Christian, I must believe the apostles, to be convinced of the truth of Islam/quran, I must first believe Mohammed NOT the quran!! Unless I first believe Mohammed was exactly who he claimed to be, a “prophet”, a “messenger of Allah”, I have no reason to and cannot accept his supposed message-the Quran! The truth of the quran depends on the truth of Mohammed’s prophethood, NOT the other way around. If that remains unproven, the quran becomes nothing but a collection of stories, hymns, poems and prayers from 7th Century Arabia with multiple origins in Arabian Jewish and gnostic Christianity influences and several pagan Arabian sects, religions and customs.

Same logic with the Bible too. If the apostles are false, the Bible becomes a collection of plagarized pagan and Jewish myths with some Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy mixed in for good measure.

 

[Marybeloved]

This could equally be argued for Jesus. Most, if not all of what we know of His life and death comes from one source. The ancient sources outside of the Bible are few and far between, and are subject to intense criticism as to their validity. Indeed, from what I can tell of my own study of the ancient references to Jesus such as Tacitus, many are meant to be forgeries or later additions by (Christian) copyists.

As to Jesus Himself, the entire premise of the Christian faith relies on believing Jesus to be the Son of God. Now all we have is the words of Jesus to rely on and his own proclamations in the Bible as to the truth of this claim, which again cannot be verified in any way, recorded well after the fact by people who likely never actually met Jesus in person.

**You’re doing what is known as special pleading- the same logic is applied to both Islam AND Christianity. But because YOU believe in one, you’re making some exceptions for it. **

I’m tempted to believe you did not even read my entire post, because all you’ve done here is answer me by repeating exactly what I’ve said. *Our faith depends on the testimony of the primary witnesses, the Apostles, part of which is written in the new testament. *Our apologists understand this very well, that’s why they focus on the corroborating evidence for what they said, amongst the pagan and Jewish sources, and the testimony of their martrydoms and generally other things that are aimed at trying to show that they weren’t or couldn’t have been lying- The point is about the focus of “proof” for the faith is aimed at the testimony of the witnesses. How is that special pleading? Show me how I’ve made the standard different for Christianity when I start by acknowledging that our faith rests on the testimony of the apostles!!!, the same claim I make about Islam! Try actually understanding what someone is saying before attempting to refute something that hasn’t even been claimed.

Also, a note of martyrs- people dying for a cause is NOT a sign of its validity. There have been many cults and incidents where people have died for a cause which can be viewed as false.

Yes, people do die indeed die for fake beliefs- Many muslims died for Islam and for Mohammed at the beginning. But nobody dies knowing they are dying for fake beliefs- This indeed would be an incredible claim, if that’s what you’re implying. It would be ridiculous to claim that the first Muslims did not believe that Mohammed was a prophet of God, for example, or that cult members don’t believe in the claims of their cult leader! Martyrdom is at least a sign that the person believed that what they were dying for is the truth! It’s proof as to the beliefs of the martyred persons. People believe that their cult/cult leader is whatever is claimed, that’s why they die.

The reason it’s used as proof for Christianity is exactly what I’ve said- proof that these Jewish men at the very least totally believed in what they died for! Since it’s their testimony that we’re relying on, proof of either deliberate lying or utter conviction on their part is indeed relevant! Even in Court, proof of a dying person has some extra weight. Now these guys went to their deaths willingly for a lie they knew to be a lie? No, you show me proof of any person in History who willingly died for a lie they knew to be a lie! They at least were completely convinced. It’s these guys who had claimed they saw Christ resurrected-that’s why it’s important, and we’re talking only of the deaths of the witnesses, apostles and others, not that of other Christians who did not witness but simply believed.

Just as we have to conclude, Jesus at least believed himself to be the son of God and messiah. Perhaps he was deluded? But you cannot say he deliberately lied, because it was a lie he was willing to embrace death for. Martyrdom of any person is proof of the conviction of that person. If Muhammed himself, for example had been tortured and martyred insisting on his claims, We would at least have to conclude that the man himself believed he was telling the truth and did not just deliberately concoct the whole thing.

Same logic with the Bible too. If the apostles are false, the Bible becomes a collection of plagiarized pagan and Jewish myths with some Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy mixed in for good measure.

Again, why bother answering at all if all you’re going to do is repeat exactly what has been asserted by the person you’re supposedly trying to refute!

The point of my post was that while Christians understand that their faith rests on the testimony of the witnesses, Muslims usually appear to miss this point entirely- They seek to prove the truth of their religion by pointing to the Quran as if it were self evident that it was completely true! It would be like fundamentalist Christians trying to prove the bible from the bible- It makes no sense! because it depends on first accepting the book as true, which is no proof at all that it is true. Since the Quran did not fall from the sky complete like a comet, but came through one singular source, whether or not this source is speaking the truth is the place where the faith stands or falls. I was pointing out that they have to prove their religion by proving the testimony of Muhammed to have been true, since he is the only witness of his supposed revelations. I have not made any special case for Christianity- I insist that apologists try to point to evidence that the Christian witnesses were not lying, because they appreciate the importance of this fact.

 

[hamba2han]

… No Muslim was witness to Islam’s “revelation” apart from Mohammed. No one saw Gabriel or spoke to him, or any of the other claims of Mohammed, his going to heaven, flight to Jerusalem etc, not even his closest companions or wives. All they ever witnessed was Mohammed giving them “recitations” little verses here and there on many different occasions over a 23 year period. “Recitations” that were handed to him by an entity nobody could verify in any way. If Mohammed lied about these experiences, Islam falls. Again, simple application of reason.

To be Christian, I must believe the apostles, to be convinced of the truth of Islam/quran, I must first believe Mohammed NOT the quran!! Unless I first believe Mohammed was exactly who he claimed to be, a “prophet”, a “messenger of Allah”, I have no reason to and cannot accept his supposed message-the Quran! The truth of the quran depends on the truth of Mohammed’s prophethood, NOT the other way around. If that remains unproven, the quran becomes nothing but a collection of stories, hymns, poems and prayers from 7th Century Arabia with multiple origins in Arabian Jewish and gnostic Christianity influences and several pagan Arabian sects, religions and customs.

Muslims must show that Mohammed was a prophet, not claim that the quran is its own miracle, as if this were a self evident truth like pointing to the sun and saying “I believe that is the sun”. Further, they cannot point to the quran’s teachings, like some do, to belief in one God. The quran has no copyright on this truth. It’s been taught even in African traditional religions, leave alone Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, ancient chinese religion etc. If it were exclusive to Islam, the matter would be simple. Demonstrating simply from reason that God is one, I’d have to join the religion that taught this. But since Islam simply adopted a belief that long preceded it, that’s no reason to become a muslim- Why not become a Jew or Zoroastrian? or just follow my own conscience and reason as to what is right? No, to chose Islam, I have to believe in Muhammed this is what distinguishes this faith from the others.

This is what the Jews recognized when they asked, very reasonably, for a sign that Mohammed was a prophet, earning thereafter his everlasting hatred when he could procure no such thing. In the OT when God gave messages to prophets that no one else witnessed, he confirmed the prophets with “miracles”. Again, simple reasoning. He gave a sign that everyone knew was beyond the claimed prophet, this was God’s own “witness” to that person’s claims. Mohammed expected the Jews to just accept his incredible claims, “just like that” like the Muslims had done and continue to do to the present age- To accept it just because Mohammed said it came from God-this and this alone is the whole basis for Islam as a religion- they believe in Mohammed’s claims, without any corroboration for them whatsoever- from anyone. That’s why criticizing him elicits more craziness than criticizing Allah himself.

“Our faith depends on the testimony of the primary witnesses, the Apostles, part of which is written in the New Testament”.

Islam teaches a somewhat similar approach… only the big difference is that the faith of Muslims depends not only on the testimony of the literally thousands of Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who lived and witnessed his actions and heard his teachings throughout the 23-year period of his Prophet-hood, but more significantly, the faith of Muslims primarily depends on the Testimony of God Almighty Himself in the form of the Qur’an.

You see, Islam teaches that the Qur’an is nothing less than the verbatim Speech of God and which has been preserved with 100% purity and accuracy since the time of the Prophet (pbuh).

Therefore, it is no exaggeration at all for Muslims to say that their faith in Islam does indeed rest on the Testimony of Almighty God Himself.

And so, since Islam does indeed make the claim that the Qur’an is the verbatim Speech of God which could NOT possibly have been authored by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or anyone else of His creations, then for anyone who sincerely wishes to ascertain whether or not the Qur’an comes form their Creator, the logical and sensible thing for them to do would be to test and examine for themselves the Qur’an that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought to humankind.

Considering what is at stake in the Hereafter, any other approach to ascertain the truth of one’s faith would simply not be good enough, I’m afraid.

And as for your assertion that the Jews at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not accept him as a true Prophet of God, on the contrary, it is in fact well documented that many of them did indeed revert to Islam.

In fact, the huge collection of ahadith that we have today has largely come about through the ‘Science of Hadith’ based on a methodology known as isnad which was introduced by Jews who became the trusted Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when they reverted to Islam.

 

[Marybeloved]

“Our faith depends on the testimony of the primary witnesses, the Apostles, part of which is written in the New Testament”.

Islam teaches a somewhat similar approach… only the big difference is that the faith of Muslims depends not only on the testimony of the literally thousands of Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who lived and witnessed his actions and heard his teachings throughout the 23-year period of his Prophet-hood, but more significantly, the faith of Muslims primarily depends on the Testimony of God Almighty Himself in the form of the Qur’an…In fact, the huge collection of ahadith that we have today has largely come about through the ‘Science of Hadith’ based on a methodology known as isnad which was introduced by Jews who became the trusted Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when they reverted to Islam.

The thousands of witnesses of Islam are only witnesses to Mohammed’s claims that he received a revelation. They are NOT witnesses as to the revelations themselves which constitute your faith ie the origin of your book- Like I said, they witnessed none of Mohammed’s “encounters” with angels and what not- all they witnessed was Mohammed making certain claims and teaching certain things.

It’s like a court room. Putting those witnesses on the stand, they could only swear to- “Mohammed said he was a prophet of Allah, he taught certain doctrines, he gave us certain verses over a period of 23 years- He said these verses were not his own but given to him by God/angels” etc etc.

They would NOT be able to say: “I saw Mohammed meet an angel, I saw him ascending to Heaven on a special animal, to Jerusalem etc etc” They could only swear that Mohammed told them these things, and they believed him. Nothing more. All cults and religions which start with the claim of a founder are like similar- It just shows the cult leader made claims and the followers believed him. In no way does it show that the claims made by the leader were true but that they were made and believed, which is why the cult exists. If we were asking “What did Mohammed say, teach and do?” We would accept the testimony of these thousands. If we are asking “Did Mohammed actually receive a revelation from an angel, from God?” Their evidence would be nothing but hearsay evidence and inadmissible even in a modern Court- They can only testify to Mohammed’s claims, that he made them- Nothing more.

The ONLY witness who is competent to swear that those things are factual- (That an angel spoke to Mohammed, that the revelations he gave his followers he actually received from some other entity, that he went to heaven and Jerusalem or that he saw the things he saw in heaven)- is ONLY and ONLY one! Mohammed alone. Anybody else who believed in these things, including your so called “thousands of witnesses” only believed them because Mohammed told them and they accepted it- Their testimony again, is what is called hearsay evidence and would not be admissible even in an ordinary case!

Now think about Christianity in Court- The witnesses we are talking about are not saying anything that is not within their direct personal knowledge/experience-

They are saying-
“There was this guy called Jesus, he made certain claims about himself, he performed certain inexplicable acts like raise the dead, heal the sick, walk on water etc etc, he taught certain doctrines, like love your neighbor etc finally he was tried, convicted and executed, died, buried. On the third day, he appeared to us alive and well with the marks of his execution still on his body and commanded us to spread his teachings to the whole world, forty days later we saw him go up into the air and vanish- We did not see him again after that” - This testimony is not hearsay but direct evidence.
They are not saying- “He said he rose from the dead and we believe him”- Or “he told us he raised the dead/ walked on water, etc and we believe him”- Their testimony is “we saw the guy walk on water, raise the dead” and “Weheard him claiming that he was the messiah and the Son of God.” “We saw him arrested, tried, scourged, sentenced, executed and die. We saw him get buried- indeed we buried him ourselves. Some days later the man appeared right before our eyes alive and well, looking like nothing from this world with his execution marks still on his body!” Basically they can attest to both Jesus’ claims and deeds as well as his supernatural occurrences. We are saying that these same guys with everything in the world to gain from abandoning these claims, (especially if they were false and especially with their leader having been publicly disgraced and “defeated”) and everything in the world to lose from insisting on them (especially from the Govt of Rome and their own people!), were then willing to die the most horrible deaths, rather than retract their testimonies in any way!!

That’s not the same as the testimony of your “thousands of witnesses” who can only say Mohammed made the claims and we believed him to the point of death. If people believing other people alone were testimony enough as to the claims made being true, all the cults in the world that have ever existed are true! Indeed the number of Christians who simply believed the testimony of the Apostles and of the first Christians and died for this belief are thousands upon thousands- millions down the ages! But their testimony doesn’t count when asking whether those claims are facts.

 

[Marybeloved]

You see, Islam teaches that the Qur’an is nothing less than the verbatim Speech of God and which has been preserved with 100% purity and accuracy since the time of the Prophet (pbuh).

Therefore, it is no exaggeration at all for Muslims to say that their faith in Islam does indeed rest on the Testimony of Almighty God Himself.

And so, since Islam does indeed make the claim that the Qur’an is the verbatim Speech of God which could NOT possibly have been authored by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or anyone else of His creations, then for anyone who sincerely wishes to ascertain whether or not the Qur’an comes form their Creator, the logical and sensible thing for them to do would be to test and examine for themselves the Qur’an that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought to humankind.

Considering what is at stake in the Hereafter, any other approach to ascertain the truth of one’s faith would simply not be good enough, I’m afraid.

As far as God’s “witness”- O come on! The Quran is a book with beautiful writings and prayers mixed with not-so-beautiful writing- created over a 23 year period of a certain man’s life- How is that supposed to show that it’s of Divine origin and not of Mohammed’s brain + experiences? You only believe it because you believe Muhammed when he tells you “God gave me these revelations”. There is only One witness to your religion and he’s not God or Mohammed’s devout followers but Mohammed himself- Alone!

God made humans with the power of reason, and this is the only means we have of searching for and finding the truth. You’re saying that God expects to give us a book through a guy whose claims no one beside him can substantiate and just have us accept it as truth, as if no one else has ever made such claims. Why not just accept some other book or religion? This is akin to Jesus walking around ancient Israel and without any miracles or signs at all or references to ancient prophecies, just saying to the people “Look I’m the messiah- Isn’t it obvious?” Indeed if this is all he had done he would have been seen only as an imbecile and lunatic and dismissed without much fuss, and not as the threat and danger that must be squashed as he was taken to be.

 

[hamba2han]

The thousands of witnesses of Islam are only witnesses to Mohammed’s claims that he received a revelation. They are NOT witnesses as to the revelations themselves which constitute your faith ie the origin of your book- Like I said, they witnessed none of Mohammed’s “encounters” with angels and what not- all they witnessed was Mohammed making certain claims and teaching certain things.

It’s like a court room. Putting those witnesses on the stand, they could only swear to- “Mohammed said he was a prophet of Allah, he taught certain doctrines, he gave us certain verses over a period of 23 years- He said these verses were not his own but given to him by God/angels” etc etc.

They would NOT be able to say: “I saw Mohammed meet an angel, I saw him ascending to Heaven on a special animal, to Jerusalem etc etc” They could only swear that Mohammed told them these things, and they believed him. Nothing more. All cults and religions which start with the claim of a founder are like similar- It just shows the cult leader made claims and the followers believed him. In no way does it show that the claims made by the leader were true but that they were made and believed, which is why the cult exists. If we were asking “What did Mohammed say, teach and do?” We would accept the testimony of these thousands. If we are asking “Did Mohammed actually receive a revelation from an angel, from God?” Their evidence would be nothing but hearsay evidence and inadmissible even in a modern Court- They can only testify to Mohammed’s claims, that he made them- Nothing more.

The ONLY witness who is competent to swear that those things are factual- (That an angel spoke to Mohammed, that the revelations he gave his followers he actually received from some other entity, that he went to heaven and Jerusalem or that he saw the things he saw in heaven)- is ONLY and ONLY one! Mohammed alone. Anybody else who believed in these things, including your so called “thousands of witnesses” only believed them because Mohammed told them and they accepted it- Their testimony again, is what is called hearsay evidence and would not be admissible even in an ordinary case!

Apart from the Qur’an, there are numerous other miracles that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) performed with the help of Allah and which have been recorded through isnad and the Science of Hadith and the following is just one of them:

On more than one occasion when people were in dire need of water, the blessing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) saved them. In the sixth year after the he migrated from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad went to Mecca for pilgrimage. In the long journey through the desert, people ran out of all water, only the Prophet was left with a vessel with which he performed ablution for prayers. He put his hand in vessel, water began flowing from between his fingers. Jabir bin Abdullah, who witnessed the miracle, says of the fifteen hundred men, ‘We drank it and made ablution.’ This miracle has been transmitted with an unbroken chain of reliable scholars (mutawatir hadith).

The sprouting of water from human fingers is similar to Prophet Moses’ (pbuh) miracle of producing water from a rock and even more specifically, it is the same miracle recorded in Jewish scriptures regarding the miracle of Prophet Elijah (pbuh) sprouting water from his fingers.

And from Wikipedia:

Mutawatir (Arabic: متواتر) is an Arabic word meaning “consecutive.” It is often used as an Islamic term within the science of hadith. A hadith is said to be mutawatir if it was reported by a significant number of narrators at each chain in the narration, and therefore through multiple chains of narration leading back to Muhammad. This provides confirmation that the hadith is sahih to a level beyond reasonable doubt, as it is beyond historical possibility that narrators could have conspired to forge a narration. Hadiths can be mutawatir in both actual text and meaning.

In comparison, an ahaad hadith is a narration which at some point in the chain has only a single narrator and the point here is that for those who are continually harping on the age of A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when she married the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), remember that what you are proclaiming as an undeniable fact is actually a hadith which has been recorded based on her recollection alone.

On the other hand, in the case of the miracle described above, it is recorded as a mutawatir hadith i.e. an authentic hadith which is exceptionally strong to “a level beyond reasonable doubt”.

And so, if indeed you do believe the veracity of the hadith regarding A’ishah’s age at the time of her marriage, then there really is no reason at all why you should have any doubts whatsoever about the veracity of this mutawatir hadith describing the miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) sprouting water from his fingers.

In short, if you are indeed insisting to see a miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) other than the Qur’an, as “proof” that he is a true Prophet, then you have indeed been provided just one example of many minor miracles that were witnessed by hundreds if not thousands of his companions throughout the 23-year period of his Prophet-hood.

 

[hamba2han]

As far as God’s “witness”- O come on! The Quran is a book with beautiful writings and prayers mixed with not-so-beautiful writing- created over a 23 year period of a certain man’s life- How is that supposed to show that it’s of Divine origin and not of Mohammed’s brain + experiences? You only believe it because you believe Muhammed when he tells you “God gave me these revelations”. There is only One witness to your religion and he’s not God or Mohammed’s devout followers but Mohammed himself- Alone!

God made humans with the power of reason, and this is the only means we have of searching for and finding the truth. You’re saying that God expects to give us a book through a guy whose claims no one beside him can substantiate and just have us accept it as truth, as if no one else has ever made such claims. Why not just accept some other book or religion? This is akin to Jesus walking around ancient Israel and without any miracles or signs at all or references to ancient prophecies, just saying to the people “Look I’m the messiah- Isn’t it obvious?” Indeed if this is all he had done he would have been seen only as an imbecile and lunatic and dismissed without much fuss, and not as the threat and danger that must be squashed as he was taken to be.

In order to understand why Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the verbatim Speech and thereby the Testimony of the Lord Himself, then you need to read ALL of the links which I have provided in my earlier post.

 

[Marybeloved]

“Our faith depends on the testimony of the primary witnesses, the Apostles, part of which is written in the New Testament”.

Islam teaches a somewhat similar approach… only the big difference is that the faith of Muslims depends not only on the testimony of the literally thousands of Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who lived and witnessed his actions and heard his teachings throughout the 23-year period of his Prophet-hood, but more significantly, the faith of Muslims primarily depends on the Testimony of God Almighty Himself in the form of the Qur’an.

You see, Islam teaches that the Qur’an is nothing less than the verbatim Speech of God and which has been preserved with 100% purity and accuracy since the time of the Prophet (pbuh).

Therefore, it is no exaggeration at all for Muslims to say that their faith in Islam does indeed rest on the Testimony of Almighty God Himself.

And so, since Islam does indeed make the claim that the Qur’an is the verbatim Speech of God which could NOT possibly have been authored by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or anyone else of His creations, then for anyone who sincerely wishes to ascertain whether or not the Qur’an comes form their Creator, the logical and sensible thing for them to do would be to test and examine for themselves the Qur’an that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought to humankind.

Considering what is at stake in the Hereafter, any other approach to ascertain the truth of one’s faith would simply not be good enough, I’m afraid.

And as for your assertion that the Jews at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not accept him as a true Prophet of God, on the contrary, it is in fact well documented that many of them did indeed revert to Islam.

In fact, the huge collection of ahadith that we have today has largely come about through the ‘Science of Hadith’ based on a methodology known as isnad which was introduced by Jews who became the trusted Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when they reverted to Islam.

I see. So is the quran lying when it shows repeatedly that Mohammed performed no sign that the unbelievers kept demanding from him? Why does it keep quoting these unbelievers who ask “Why has no sign been sent to him from his Lord?” Does your quran answer these unbelievers with signs apart from the almighty suras of the quran which it claims can be repeated by no one or the prophecies of the older books supposedly speaking about him? Are you referring to stories of “miracles” by Mohammed that have been compared with the Christian “apocrypha” due to the fact that they can be traced to no earlier than two to three centuries after these supposed miracles happened and were made up by pious believers long after the death of their prophet like in most legends of cults and religions? What about the hadith that say that Mohammed himself said he had no miracle except the quran? Which ones are true?

 

[Marybeloved]

Sorry, This is the post I meant to quote in the above comment

Apart from the Qur’an, there are numerous other miracles that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) performed with the help of Allah and which have been recorded through isnad and the Science of Hadith and the following is just one of them:

On more than one occasion when people were in dire need of water, the blessing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) saved them. In the sixth year after the he migrated from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad went to Mecca for pilgrimage. In the long journey through the desert, people ran out of all water, only the Prophet was left with a vessel with which he performed ablution for prayers. He put his hand in vessel, water began flowing from between his fingers. Jabir bin Abdullah, who witnessed the miracle, says of the fifteen hundred men, ‘We drank it and made ablution.’ This miracle has been transmitted with an unbroken chain of reliable scholars (mutawatir hadith).

The sprouting of water from human fingers is similar to Prophet Moses’ (pbuh) miracle of producing water from a rock and even more specifically, it is the same miracle recorded in Jewish scriptures regarding the miracle of Prophet Elijah (pbuh) sprouting water from his fingers.

And from Wikipedia:

Mutawatir (Arabic: متواتر) is an Arabic word meaning “consecutive.” It is often used as an Islamic term within the science of hadith. A hadith is said to be mutawatir if it was reported by a significant number of narrators at each chain in the narration, and therefore through multiple chains of narration leading back to Muhammad. This provides confirmation that the hadith is sahih to a level beyond reasonable doubt, as it is beyond historical possibility that narrators could have conspired to forge a narration. Hadiths can be mutawatir in both actual text and meaning.

In comparison, an ahaad hadith is a narration which at some point in the chain has only a single narrator and the point here is that for those who are continually harping on the age of A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when she married the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), remember that what you are proclaiming as an undeniable fact is actually a hadith which has been recorded based on her recollection alone.

On the other hand, in the case of the miracle described above, it is recorded as a mutawatir hadith i.e. an authentic hadith which is exceptionally strong to “a level beyond reasonable doubt”.

And so, if indeed you do believe the veracity of the hadith regarding A’ishah’s age at the time of her marriage, then there really is no reason at all why you should have any doubts whatsoever about the veracity of this mutawatir hadith describing the miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) sprouting water from his fingers.

In short, if you are indeed insisting to see a miracle of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) other than the Qur’an, as “proof” that he is a true Prophet, then you have indeed been provided just one example of many minor miracles that were witnessed by hundreds if not thousands of his companions throughout the 23-year period of his Prophet-hood.

 

[hamba2han]

I see. So is the quran lying when it shows repeatedly that Mohammed performed no sign that the unbelievers kept demanding from him? Why does it keep quoting these unbelievers who ask “Why has no sign been sent to him from his Lord?” Does your quran answer these unbelievers with signs apart from the almighty suras of the quran which it claims can be repeated by no one or the prophecies of the older books supposedly speaking about him? Are you referring to stories of “miracles” by Mohammed that have been compared with the Christian “apocrypha” due to the fact that they can be traced to no earlier than two to three centuries after these supposed miracles happened and were made up by pious believers long after the death of their prophet like in most legends of cults and religions? What about the hadith that say that Mohammed himself said he had no miracle except the quran? Which ones are true?

I am not aware of any verse in the Qur’an or of any authentic hadith which says that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not perform any miracles.

Can you kindly point them out?

BTW, here are a couple more examples of miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with the help of the Lord concerning water

The Companions were left without water in a place called Zarwa. They were going to do wudu’ (ritual ablution) but they could not find enough water. God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, ordered them to bring a bowl of water. He dipped his hands into the bowl and water began to run from his fingers like a fountain. Anas ibn Malik says that on that day they were three hundred people. [Nasa’i, 1.60; Bukhari, 4.233; Muslim, Hadith No. 2279]

Anas relates this incident on behalf of three hundred persons. Is it at all conceivable that those three hundred people would not have confirmed him, if they thought him to be truthful, or otherwise contradicted him?

As a second example, during the campaign of Hudaybiya, the Companions complained to God’s Messenger about the lack of water. The Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, took an arrow out of his arrow-bag and ordered them to put it in the well of Samad. When they did that, the water of the well began to gush. During the campaign, all of the Companions drank from it and did wudu’ with it. [Bukhari, Shurut, 15]

There are in fact many examples of miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) concerning water. They were related by numerous Companions and transmitted through various reliable channels.

 

[Marybeloved]

I am not aware of any verse in the Qur’an or of any authentic hadith which says that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not perform any miracles.

Can you kindly point them out?

BTW, here are a couple more examples of miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with the help of the Lord concerning water

The Companions were left without water in a place called Zarwa. They were going to do wudu’ (ritual ablution) but they could not find enough water. God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, ordered them to bring a bowl of water. He dipped his hands into the bowl and water began to run from his fingers like a fountain. Anas ibn Malik says that on that day they were three hundred people. [Nasa’i, 1.60; Bukhari, 4.233; Muslim, Hadith No. 2279]

Anas relates this incident on behalf of three hundred persons. Is it at all conceivable that those three hundred people would not have confirmed him, if they thought him to be truthful, or otherwise contradicted him?

As a second example, during the campaign of Hudaybiya, the Companions complained to God’s Messenger about the lack of water. The Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, took an arrow out of his arrow-bag and ordered them to put it in the well of Samad. When they did that, the water of the well began to gush. During the campaign, all of the Companions drank from it and did wudu’ with it. [Bukhari, Shurut, 15]

There are in fact many examples of miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) concerning water. They were related by numerous Companions and transmitted through various reliable channels.

Your book, relating so many miracles of other prophets like Moses and Jesus, failed to report such miracles (claimed in the hadiths to have been abundant) when it came to it’s own prophet!- even in answer to the numerous charges against Mohammed recorded in the Quran that no sign had been performed by him? All the Qur’an answers to these charges is that Mohammed is just a warner, that the quran itself is a sufficient sign, that the previous prophets’ signs had not been believed, that the previous revelations in the earlier books were signs sufficient, that the unbelievers wouldn’t believe even if they witnessed signs, that the unbelievers should produce a sura similar to the quran (as a challenge), that miracles belong to Allah- Everything is given in answer except the signs themselves! And you expect people to swallow that the so called miracles (claimed after Mohammed’s death) were present along when this fact (lack of miracles) is what had been used to challenge Muhammed all along? Why should Allah go into such circles in answering the repeated charges of lack of signs with numerous excuses instead of just saying “We caused water to flow from your fingers like a fountain” “We filled the well of Samad” etc etc?

“The unbelievers say, “Why hath not a sign been given by his Lord? Nay, but thou art only a Warner; and unto every people there hath been given a guide.” (Al Ra’d 13:8)

“And nothing hindered Us from sending (thee) with miracles, but that those of old time gave them the lie” (Bani Israel 17:58).

“They say, “Why hath not a sign been sent down unto him from his Lord?” SAY, “Signs belong unto the Lord: and as for me, I am but a plain preacher.” (Al Ankabut 29:48)

And when thou dost not show unto them a sign, they say, “Why hast thou avoided to bring it?” SAY, “Verily, I follow that only wherewith the Lord hath inspired me.” This (revelation) is a witness from your Lord, a guide and a mercy to the people that believe. (Al Araf 7:204)

And we are supposed to believe during these numerous debates there actually were hundreds of astounding miracles by mohammed, and Mohammed can only answer- But I’m just a warner, a simple preacher! God himself is explaining Why Mohammed has been given no miracles* ““And nothing hindered Us from sending (thee) with miracles, but that those of old time gave them the lie” (Bani Israel 17:58).”* And Muslims insist on these miracles recorded not less than 100 years after Mohammed as proofs of hundreds of great miracles!

 

[Marybeloved]

The Hadith is Sahih Bukhari 9:92:379: Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection.”

Here Mohammed is, saying clearly that while others got miracles, he only got the Quran, clearly consistent with what is claimed in the quran- So Which hadith are true?

 

[jakasaki]

The Hadith is Sahih Bukhari 9:92:379: Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection.”

Here Mohammed is, saying clearly that while others got miracles, he only got the Quran, clearly consistent with what is claimed in the quran- So Which hadith are true?

Stand by MaryBeloved ~

Hamba needs to check answering Christianity dot com for his answer…

Or perhaps what Deedat has to say about this…

 

[Peace_of_cake]

The Hadith is Sahih Bukhari 9:92:379: Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection.”

Here Mohammed is, saying clearly that while others got miracles, he only got the Quran, clearly consistent with what is claimed in the quran- So Which hadith are true?

Marybeloved, I must say this is rather a silly argument! Its a bit like me saying Jesus said:

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.[John 16:33]

and

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[Matt 10:34]

So here we have Jesus saying he was spreading peace and then saying he’s spreading the sword too!?! So which Gospel is right?

Its ridiculous isn’t it?

Besides what you’ve quoted doesn’t clearly say that. Its like me saying to my class ‘everyone failed except two people,’ so does that mean two people in the entire country passed? This is why both faiths have tradition to counter such rubbish.

I can only assume you have hatred of Islam to make such petty comments… is hatred a good characteristic for a Christian to have? Come on guys lets take the better way.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved, I must say this is rather a silly argument! Its a bit like me saying Jesus said:

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.[John 16:33]

and

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[Matt 10:34]

So here we have Jesus saying he was spreading peace and then saying he’s spreading the sword too!?! So which Gospel is right?

Its ridiculous isn’t it?

Besides what you’ve quoted doesn’t clearly say that. Its like me saying to my class ‘everyone failed except two people,’ so does that mean two people in the entire country passed? This is why both faiths have tradition to counter such rubbish.

I can only assume you have hatred of Islam to make such petty comments… is hatred a good characteristic for a Christian to have? Come on guys lets take the better way.

I’m sorry you feel the way you do. Is having views that challenge your beliefs your definition of hatred? Of course I don’t believe Muhammed was a prophet in any way- at least not a prophet of God, or that the quran is any more special than the Tao Te Ching- Does that surprise you? If I was challenged by you or any other Muslim (as they often do) that I worship a mere man as God, or that my God died etc, I think I would be most unreasonable to take that as proof of hatred, as I now take your complaint here to be.

I’ve outlined my reasons for believing that Islam has no leg to stand on but the single solitary testimony of it’s founder, like numerous cults in the centuries such as many false Jewish messiahs that came to Israel before and after Jesus, the Mormons, 2Oth century cults etc etc. I’ve outlined my reasons for disbelieving the stories of Muhammed’s miracles- that he was in constant debates attested to in your quran concerning his failure in this area and no where was he able to reply by pointing to any such signs in answer, and I indicated that your hadith were collected centuries after the fact and that your Prophet has clearly said his miracle was quran as the quran itself has also said. Why is this not taken as just a debate but “hatred” by you? I assure you I have no hatred for your religion. I admire a lot about some of its teachings (and raise an eye brow to some, as well)- I just disbelieve it.

That hadith appears to me to clearly say that others had miracles, but Mohammed got the Quran. To me the hadith would make no sense if at the same time, Mohammed had also performed numerous feats like all the others before him. If I’m reading it wrong and you wish to represent the true position of your faith, you should point it out with corrections rather than accusations of hate.

 

[mwok]

This could equally be argued for Jesus. Most, if not all of what we know of His life and death comes from one source. The ancient sources outside of the Bible are few and far between, and are subject to intense criticism as to their validity. Indeed, from what I can tell of my own study of the ancient references to Jesus such as Tacitus, many are meant to be forgeries or later additions by (Christian) copyists.

As to Jesus Himself, the entire premise of the Christian faith relies on believing Jesus to be the Son of God. Now all we have is the words of Jesus to rely on and his own proclamations in the Bible as to the truth of this claim, which again cannot be verified in any way, recorded well after the fact by people who likely never actually met Jesus in person.

Actually, the entire premise of the Christian Faith is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead by His own authority. If Jesus did not do that than either the Roman authorities or the Pharisees/Sadducees would have disproved Christianity LONG before MHMD would have a chance to.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved, I must say this is rather a silly argument! Its a bit like me saying Jesus said:

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.[John 16:33]

and

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[Matt 10:34]

So here we have Jesus saying he was spreading peace and then saying he’s spreading the sword too!?! So which Gospel is right?

Its ridiculous isn’t it?

Besides what you’ve quoted doesn’t clearly say that. Its like me saying to my class ‘everyone failed except two people,’ so does that mean two people in the entire country passed? This is why both faiths have tradition to counter such rubbish.

I can only assume you have hatred of Islam to make such petty comments… is hatred a good characteristic for a Christian to have? Come on guys lets take the better way.

I don’t see how your examples apply to this hadith and the quran vs the others about miracles. For one, Christians don’t believe that the New testament is the verbatim speech of God. For us, (especially the apostolic Christians- Catholics, E. Orthodox, O. Orthodox) those verses present absolutely no paradox- We know that the New Testament is but a part of a larger tradition and to read it in isolation outside the understanding of the faith and the tradition of the church is ridiculous. So I see clearly that in one place Jesus is promising “the peace that surpaseth all understanding” to his followers and in the other he promises that his faith shall bring strife to “the world” between those who believe in him and those who don’t. One is an inner peace that can only be given to the lovers of Christ even in the midst of the worst external strife.

In your beliefs, the Qur’an has not even mere gramatic error, so when God says that he has given no miracles due to past disbelief in them, I’m supposed to take it exactly like that or that the Qur’an alone is a sufficient sign, I’m supposed to believe that it is sufficient, meaning "anything extra at all is superfluous ". It would be superfluous to then perform hundreds of these (completely unnecessary) signs after giving so “sufficient” a sign as the Qur’an, so says the lord. In your religion, only the Qur’an is preserved from error and not the hundreds of hadith collected centuries later that constantly contradict each other (and also paint a pretty unsavory picture of your prophet), they are not in any way supposed to contradict the “verbatim speech of God” surely not! So your claim that both religions have traditions to counter such “rubbish” as you put it, simply is comparing apples and oranges.

I was merely pointing out that in this hadith, Mohammed is comparing himself with past prophets and contrasting their signs (miracles) with his (Qur’an). If he had also done miracles (like them) the contrast is ridiculous- He would more likely say “The others performed miracles but I, apart from my miracles, have also received the Quran” If I said to you, “you got an apple, but I got an orange” you’d understand that I did not get an apple, because if I did I would say “you got an apple, but I also got an orange” or “I got an orange as well” then you’d know I got an apple and orange. I think this contradicts the other claims of miracles and just wanted to know which ones are true.