Historical-Critical Critique of early Islam

[arthra]

Reggie…

Thanks for your kind responses and of course based on your interpretation… The thrust of my post is that if we take the words of the Qur’an it doesn’t necessarily deny the sacrifice and martyrdom of Jesus… Yes Jesus in my view would be a Chief of Martyrs willing to offer His physical life for the sins of humanity… to me this is far more important than a so called “substitute” stepping into His place.

It was “made to appear” that the Cause of Jesus was dead…snuffed out and destroyed but in few days His disciples took heart and shared His Cause with the world.

In closing I would recommend for your review a recently published book on the subject:

amazon.com/Crucifixion-Quran-History-Thought-2009-03-01/dp/B01F7XLPYY/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1497094979&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=The+Crucifixion+and+the+Qur%27an+A+Study+in+the+History+of+Muslim+Thought+by+Todd+Lawson.

With prayers for your continuing thoughtfulness…

Arthur

 

[hasantas]

The term Muslim has more meaning than you describe but nonetheless - no Christians referred to themselves as “submit to God” or anything like that in any of the centuries before Muhammad. They did refer to themselves as Catholics. Others were called Nestorians or Arians, etc.
Have you read any of the many histories of the early Christian Church? There are several on-line editions that I could refer you to.

69- Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.Al-Ma’idah(5)

 

[hasantas]

As to the biography of the prophet by Ibn Ishaq – which was heavily redacted and abridged 50 years later by Ibn Hisham if it actually was a real historical document – see below.
I wrote in my first post on this thread that using the formal methods of text criticism, such as redaction criticism, it is most likely that the story of Muhammad being illiterate and visited by Gabriel in a dream is based on the story of Caedmon in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. How would that story have made it into the Hadith? Well, the possibility-fictional Ibn Ishaq, first biographer of Muhammad, was supposedly a court tutor for Al-Mansour in Baghdad when the Carolingian embassy of Germanic Franks arrived. Knowing Arabic culture’s love of poetry, the Frankish embassy would be stupid not to bring the greatest poetry and hymnity from their own culture to share. Caedmon’s hymn was the poem that established the norms for Germanic poetry that followed. Bede records the story of how the illiterate Caedmon came to be the greatest composer of hymns in Europe. The story is unmistakably nearly identical to the story of Muhammad’s first revelation at Hira in the Sirat ibn Hisham. Of course, there’s some editing – as Ibn Hisham claims to have done a plenty. But some characters are the same but for a name change. The illiterate Caedmon becomes the illiterate Muhammad. The man in Caedmon’s dream becomes the angel Gabriel in Muhammad’s. The abbess in Caedmon’s story becomes Khadijah in Muhammad’s. The “learned men and scholars” in Caedmon’s story becomes Waraqah ibn Nawfal in Muhammad’s. The narrative sequence of events is the same, from the three denied requests to recite or sing, to the creation-focused content of their initial song, to their awakening to have new knowledge of verses about God. I will post the story of Caedmon from book 4, chapter 24 of Bede’s work below.

The point is that Muhammad being unlettered is just like Caedmon’s being unlettered. As a scientifically-minded person, I am required to choose the explanation of observed events that does not require miraculous intervention in the world over the explanation that does not. Unlike, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the story of Muhammad’s illiteracy and first revelation can be attributed to the acquisition of the story of Caedmon’s call by the servants of Al-Mansour, who embellished it and folded it into the story of Muhammad. Baghdad was intentionally built near the former Sassanian capitol, from which al-Mansour recruited the highly educated clergy of the Church of the East that had been the administrative staffers.

Frankly I cannot understand exactly what you explain because of poor English. But your writing imply as if Islam was narrated by a biography. There were thousands of people who knew story of Muhammad and they conveyed Islam by many means oral or writen. Islam was not conveyed by unique way! Every Sahaba went to different countries to preach faith and Islam. Gabriel was used to come to Muhammad otherwise Muhammad could not preach and persuade thousands of people. No one accepted Muhammad so easily unless being assured. Here you have so doubts about Him. Pagans were so hard about their statues which they worshiped. Muhammad said it was Shirk to worship statues. I mean if Muhammad had not a fact so no one would follow Him.

When Gabriel came to Muhammad His wife Khadijah took Muhammad to Waraqah ibn Nawfal to discover situation of Muhammad because Waraqah had known previous prophets. Otherwise Muhammad had never educated by Waraqah.

 

[hasantas]

Here is an example of how the Quran borrowed from the Jewish Mishnah.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14700334&postcount=37

Qur’an quote some parts of previous scriptures. That is known very well. Allah do that to awaken people of scripture. Because they interpret scripture in the way they enjoy or do not obey and apply canons.

 

[reggieM]

Thank you for taking the time to answer this, Arthur.

:
Thanks for your kind responses and of course based on your interpretation… The thrust of my post is that if we take the words of the Qur’an it doesn’t necessarily deny the sacrifice and martyrdom of Jesus… Yes Jesus in my view would be a Chief of Martyrs willing to offer His physical life for the sins of humanity… to me this is far more important than a so called “substitute” stepping into His place.

Yes, agreement - and also slight disagreement.
First, it’s a good interpretation and prevents the Quran from being viewed as totally incorrect regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. I’ve found this to be a very good learning - and thank you for sharing it!
On the disagreements: Yes, interpretation. But we have to look at historical facts also, as much as we can know them.
To suddenly come along, 600 years after Jesus, and reinterpret His life and the meaning of His crucifixion, this is a major problem. God had already communicated the Gospel, to eyewitnesses. God had built the Christian Church. A new prophet coming later, would have to have a good reason to overthrow all that had already been built. That is what we don’t see in the Quran - a good reason.
Secondly, you use the term “martyr” and even better “Chief Martyr” for Jesus, but I failed to give the correct reason why that term has never been used by Christians:
From the Christian view (in place centuries before Muhammad, of course) - Jesus was not a martyr at all.
That’s the point.
A martyr is one who is put to death by others, for His faith.
Jesus said clearly:

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." John 10:18

This is very significant! Jesus laid His life down - as commanded by the Father.
He was not a martyr. He chose to suffer. He offered Himself. A martyr will die against his own decision. A martyr does not choose his own death - others choose it for him. That’s exactly why Jesus said this. His destiny was not determined by others.
He laid his own life down.
Then notice! “I have … authority to take it up again”. He offered His life (not a martyr) and raised Himself. He was not taken up by Allah.

It was “made to appear” that the Cause of Jesus was dead…snuffed out and destroyed but in few days His disciples took heart and shared His Cause with the world.

That is very good and very consistent with the Catholic Faith. Yes, you could interpret it that way – the disciples took heart at the Resurrection. This is good, Arthur. Keeping in mind those other issues I mentioned.

In closing I would recommend for your review a recently published book on the subject:

amazon.com/Crucifixion-Quran-History-Thought-2009-03-01/dp/B01F7XLPYY/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1497094979&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=The+Crucifixion+and+the+Qur%27an+A+Study+in+the+History+of+Muslim+Thought+by+Todd+Lawson.

I found that fascinating and I’m glad someone did a deep study on this.
I was going to say “interesting” – but to be fair, I don’t think I could read a whole book on that topic! As I said, anything that Islam has to say about the Crucifixion of Jesus came already 600 years after the event occurred. So, for me, this is like reading the history of a certain historian’s views on things. And I hope with respect, the Quran does not seem to be very good on Christian history. It doesn’t have any linkages with the 1st century sources and I think to this day, there is not a deep understanding of Christianity in the Islamic world.

I’m sure the same is said in reverse, but again - many Christians view Islam as a Christian variant and little (some yes) Christian thought is formed by Islamic views. This is not true the other way around. Islam owes it’s origin, meaning and direction to Christianity. Islam must rely in Christianity as part of it’s story and origin. The same is not true for Christianity looking at Islam.

With prayers for your continuing thoughtfulness…

Thank you for your kindess and I will certainly offer the same for you!

 

[hasantas]

=fnr;14702518]Again, I’ll say that Muhammad’s illiteracy is not an established historical fact. I am not saying that Muhammad read all the various Gospels. I’m simply pointing to the fact that the Quran has many stories that overlap in sequence and wording (in translation) with Christian and Jewish sources from the region of the Middle East. Like the authors of the Quran assimilated the story of the Marib Dam, they assimilated the stories of Jesus as a child, which were popular throughout the ancient world. The Syriac Infancy Gospel, in particular, was present in a language that would be familiar to residents of the region in which Islam came into being.

Qur’an was not writen by different authors. Verses of Qur’an were compiled by a commission. They did not fabricated verses but they compiled existent verses.

I will just point you to the book, Quranic Geography by Dan Gibson. He uses aerial photographs of the foundations of the earliest mosques to show that the oldest mosques faced neither Jerusalem nor Mecca, but Petra – the former home of the Nabatean Arabs. Only in mosques built after 822 AD is there a universal orientation toward Mecca. I’m not rejecting history, I’m just looking at objective evidence.

That is very comic. Just look at Kaaba how Muslims head towards to. Obstinacy make you blind or confused. Muslims did not know Kaaba. That is very very very very very comic.And you call that “scientific”!

Again, this statement cannot be verified historically. Ibn Hisham’s sirah was over a century after the death of Muhammad. None of the hadith can be verified by multiple attestation to have originated before the reign of Abd Al-Malik using only the isnads.

There should be arguments about Hadiths. But that does not mean Hadiths are not valid.

I will have to respectfully disagree that the Quran is miraculous. It makes notable errors in describing Christian beliefs. It contains stories whose characters and sequence of events follow pre-Islamic texts (or oral traditions) that preceded it. The story of how the Quran came to Muhammad seems to have been borrowed from the story of Caedmon.

I gave some miraculous examples in post #15

 

[steve_b]

I would say that history supports Christianity in a way that it doesn’t support Islam.

Jesus died on the cross. The Quran denies it. Historians agree with Christians. Historians disagree with the Quran.

Jesus’ first followers were Christians, not Muslims (as a “valid” hadith of Ibn Abbas claims) – in the period between 30 and 50 AD . Historians agree with Christians, not Muslims.

The Quran uses stories about Jesus from the region where it originated. Many of those stories were written using Christian stories written centuries after Jesus actually lived and died. For example, the Quan’s story of the child Jesus blowing life into clay birds was found in the Syriac Infancy Gospel – a language common among some Arabs. Also, the story of the “Companions in the Cave” is taken from the story of the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus,” a Christian story found in the writings the eastern father, Ephraim.

The Quran has an incongruous repetition of John 6’s bread of life discourse in Sura 5:112-115. It looks like an intertext reference. What is the possible purpose of a Eucharist in the Quran? This is just one of many pieces of evidence to suggest that the Quran is a pastiche of regional Christian and Jewish writings, including possibly a lectionary. The word “Quran” is close to the Syriac word “Qeryana,” which means “lectionary.” (see also the work of Christopher Luxenberg).

The Quran misstates the doctrine of the trinity. This may be a result of its originating in a region where its nearest neighbors were non-Chalcedonian Christians. The Quran’s statements could easily have been taken from debates within the region between Jacobites and Nestorians (which the hadith of Ibn Abbas incorrectly claims to be present at the time of Jesus).

Mecca, supposedly a great center of trade in the Middle East at the time Muhammad lived, does not appear on any extant map before the 9th century, and was not located on any known major trade route (based on the work of Patricia Crone).

The earliest mosques don’t have qibla facing either Jerusalem or Mecca, but Pella (based on Dan Gibson’s work). The geography of the holy city of Bakkah in the Quran does not match the geography of Mecca.

There is little archaeological evidence of the “great battles” of the early Rashidun military victories recorded in Muslim histories of the region. (Fred Donner)

The story of Muhammad’s first revelation at Hira was first narrated (supposedly) by Ibn Ishaq, who was a court tutor in Baghdad during the reign of Al-Mansur, the Abbasid caliph. He was present when an embassy from the Frankish King. At the time, the most popular and widespread of Germanic poets was a hymnist named Caedmon from Whitby Abbey in Northumbria (England), which had close ties to the Frankish court (for example, Alcuin was a member of Charlemagne’s inner circle). Arabs were known for their love of poetry, and the story of how Caedmon was called to produce poetry – as narrated in Book 4, Chapter 24 of Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People – is virtually identical to the story of Muhammad at Hira. Notably, Ibn Ishaq’s original biography is entirely lost to history, and it was “edited” by his protege, Ibn Hisham. It’s very probable that the story of Muhammad’s original revelation comes from the story of Caedmon.

None of the valid hadith can be credibly dated using the isnads (chains of transmission) before the early eight century, during the reign of Abd al-Malik (based on the work of Schact and Juynboll). It’s likely that the manufacturing of a new religion, based on a possible previously compiled Quran, to support the new Umayyad empire was employed a means of political centralization and control.

God places His covenant with

Abraham-------->Issac----------Jacob–> through Sarah

Not
​

Abraham------> Ishmael—> through Hagar

scripture In Context

 

[reggieM]

Qur’an quote some parts of previous scriptures. That is known very well. Allah do that to awaken people of scripture. Because they interpret scripture in the way they enjoy or do not obey and apply canons.

If Allah was trying to awaken people of Scipture, then the Quran should provide some significant knowledge of the Gospel, but that is very badly lacking.
Where do the Gospels say that Jesus will be followed by a prophet that is supposedly greater than Him?
More importantly, the New Testament came from the Catholic Church. Where is the evidence that there was supposed to be another religion to follow called Islam? Why didn’t the apostles and Fathers of the Church teach this? Were they wrong to teach that the Catholic Church would be the True Church to last until the end of time? What does the Quran say about it?

 

[fnr]

Frankly I cannot understand exactly what you explain because of poor English.

I apologize if my writing has not been clear. Thank you for your patience.

But your writing imply as if Islam was narrated by a biography. There were thousands of people who knew story of Muhammad and they conveyed Islam by many means oral or writen.

I would like to refer back to the title of this thread. I’m trying to focus on the methods of modern history (called “historiography”) to examine evidence for early Islam. The problem with traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad is one of historical evidence.

Ibn Ishaq, who was in the Abbasid court in Baghdad when the first Frankish visitors arrived, bearing gifts for the caliph, is supposed to have written the first biography (sirah) of Muhammad. However, there is no remaining manuscript of this document. That we lack that document at all is one reason that a Western historian might doubt the story. After Ibn Ishaq died (during the same decade as the Frankish embassy to Baghdad, I will note), it was another 50 years later before the biography was again taken up and edited by Ibn Hisham. We still have that document available, but it dates to a time 150 years after Muhammad’s life. That gap is a historical problem, especially if you look at what was going on within the Islamic empire at the time.

If you look at the Abbasid caliphate, especially under the caliph Al-Mansour, there was a determined effort to make the Islamic empire into a highly-cultured world power with its own learning. Al-Mansour chose the site of Baghdad to be within about 20 miles (32 km) of the former capital of the Sassanian Empire (Ctesiphon), to acquire the knowledge and literature found in its libraries. It just so happened that Ctesiphon was also the center of the Nestorian Christian “Church of the East,” and the Sassanian rulers made use of the Nestorians to run their administration. Al-Mansour began construction on Baghdad in 762, the Franks arrived in 765, during the growth of the caliphate’s government and bureaucratic structures.

It is very strange to me that it took 150 years to record the biography of Muhammad, if the entire Islamic empire was founded based on the teaching of Muhammad. During those 150 years, the First and Second Fitnas, the caliphates of the Umayyads and Abbasids set up seats of government, and stories from all over the world flowed into the Islamic empire. To me, the fact that the story of Muhammad’s first revelation at Hira sounds like it was lifted almost entirely from the story of Caedmon makes me seriously doubt its truth. It’s a problem of historical evidence.

When Gabriel came to Muhammad His wife Khadijah took Muhammad to Waraqah ibn Nawfal to discover situation of Muhammad because Waraqah had known previous prophets. Otherwise Muhammad had never educated by Waraqah.

Here is the sentence you just wrote, with names changed to reflect the story of Caedmon in Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. To me, it illustrates very clearly that the story of Caedmon seems to be the basis of this part of Muhammad’s biography:

When the dream visitor came to Caedmon the abbess of Whitby took Caedmon to the religious scholars in Whitby to discover situation of Caedmon because the scholars had known previous prophets. Otherwise Caedmon had never educated by the religious scholars.

 

[hasantas]

If Allah was trying to awaken people of Scipture, then the Quran should provide some significant knowledge of the Gospel, but that is very badly lacking.
Where do the Gospels say that Jesus will be followed by a prophet that is supposedly greater than Him?
More importantly, the New Testament came from the Catholic Church. Where is the evidence that there was supposed to be another religion to follow called Islam? Why didn’t the apostles and Fathers of the Church teach this? Were they wrong to teach that the Catholic Church would be the True Church to last until the end of time? What does the Quran say about it?

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16

In 13 verse it is said “but whatsoever he shall hear”. As it is known Muhammad said what He haerd from Angel Gabriel.

15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; John 14

Muhammad will be with us for ever(There will not be another comforter after Him!)(Hatamül Anbiya)

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. John 14

Muhammad is called “Fahrül Alamin” (Pride of universes) and Sultan-ı Kainat(Sultan:king of universe)

Qur’an awaken!

72- They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

73- They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
74- So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
75- The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. Al-Ma’idah(5)

Jesus had said(below) and Qur’an(Ma’idah 72) remind it:

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Mark 10

28 ¶ And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark 12

 

[reggieM]

That is interesting, hasantas.

I do not think that quote shows what I was looking for. That another prophet, Muhammad in this case, would follow Jesus. In fact, that quote talks of God the Father – and more importantly, that it is a sin not to believe in Jesus.

Do you know how Christians interpret that text from the Gospel of John? Who Christians believe the Comforter is? How this was defined in sacred Councils 300 years before the Quran was written?

Certainly, anyone can come up with an entirely different meaning to the New Testament (a book which belongs rightly to the Catholic Church, and is interpreted through the Church to which it was given), but I would think you (and Islam itself) would need to explain when, from the time of Jesus to Muhammad, Christians ever viewed the promised coming of the Spirit as if it meant another human prophet would come after Jesus.

In other words, that interpretation has no historical precedent. The apostles and the early Christian Church nowhere believed that another human prophet would come to follow Jesus.

We just celebrated the feast of Pentecost.
In the first century, St. Paul references this feast: “For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia; he was eager to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” Acts 20:16

 

[Randy_Carson]

A man died on cross who looked like Jesus. So all historians would say Jesus died on cross!

Did Allah know this was going to happen? Or did Allah intentionally deceive even Jesus’s own followers by this ruse? And he allowed billions of people to be deceived by this? If true, this trickery is not the working of an all-holy and loving God.

According to the Qur’an, Muslims believe that the Torah and the Gospel were revealed by Allah:

Surah 3:3-4
He has revealed to you the book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Qur’an.

The Qur’an also states that Muslims believe what Christians and Jews believe has been revealed by God:

Surah 29:46
We believe in what has been revealed to us and in what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit.

In actual practice, however, Muslims reject much of what Christians believe because they hold that Bible has been corrupted and that Christians and Jews worship a false God. But according to the Qur’an, this corruption is not possible:

Surah 18:27
And recite what has been revealed to you of the book of your Lord. There is none who can change His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.

Some might argue that this verse is referring to the Qur’an; the Qur’an cannot be changed. But that is not what the text says. The Qur’an clearly states that the Torah and the Gospel are the revealed Word of Allah and that none can change His Word.

Thus, in order to reject Christian doctrines about the Trinity, the Incarnation, Jesus’ death upon the cross, Muslims must believe that Allah either could not or would not protect His revealed and that the Word of God was corrupted by men…something the Qur’an says cannot happen.

Well, which is it? Either the Torah and the Gospel were corrupted (contradicting Surah 18:27) or they are not the Word of Allah (contradicting Surah 3:3-4).

According to Islam, for hundreds of years, people mistakenly believed false doctrines contained in corrupted texts, and this situation required a third book of revelation, the Qur’an.

But if Allah could not or did not protect the Torah and the Gospel, how can we know with certainty that the Qur’an is not a corrupted version of what Allah revealed to Muhammed? Did Muhammed write the Qur’an personally? No. Did Muhammed dictate the Qur’an to a scribe and then check the text for accuracy? No. The surahs of the Qur’an were pieced together after Muhammed’s death. Do different versions of the Qur’an agree with one another on every surah? NO.

So, what certainty can we have that the text today reflects what Muhammed actually claimed to have received from Allah?

 

[hasantas]

Did Allah know this was going to happen? Or did Allah intentionally deceive even Jesus’s own followers by this ruse? And he allowed billions of people to be deceived by this? If true, this trickery is not the working of an all-holy and loving God.

According to the Qur’an, Muslims believe that the Torah and the Gospel were revealed by Allah:

Surah 3:3-4
He has revealed to you the book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Qur’an.

The Qur’an also states that Muslims believe what Christians and Jews believe has been revealed by God:

Surah 29:46
We believe in what has been revealed to us and in what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit.

In actual practice, however, Muslims reject much of what Christians believe because they hold that Bible has been corrupted and that Christians and Jews worship a false God. But according to the Qur’an, this corruption is not possible:

Surah 18:27
And recite what has been revealed to you of the book of your Lord. There is none who can change His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him.

Some might argue that this verse is referring to the Qur’an; the Qur’an cannot be changed. But that is not what the text says. The Qur’an clearly states that the Torah and the Gospel are the revealed Word of Allah and that none can change His Word.

Thus, in order to reject Christian doctrines about the Trinity, the Incarnation, Jesus’ death upon the cross, Muslims must believe that Allah either could not or would not protect His revealed and that the Word of God was corrupted by men…something the Qur’an says cannot happen.

Well, which is it? Either the Torah and the Gospel were corrupted (contradicting Surah 18:27) or they are not the Word of Allah (contradicting Surah 3:3-4).

According to Islam, for hundreds of years, people mistakenly believed false doctrines contained in corrupted texts, and this situation required a third book of revelation, the Qur’an.

But if Allah could not or did not protect the Torah and the Gospel, how can we know with certainty that the Qur’an is not a corrupted version of what Allah revealed to Muhammed? Did Muhammed write the Qur’an personally? No. Did Muhammed dictate the Qur’an to a scribe and then check the text for accuracy? No. The surahs of the Qur’an were pieced together after Muhammed’s death. Do different versions of the Qur’an agree with one another on every surah? NO.

So, what certainty can we have that the text today reflects what Muhammed actually claimed to have received from Allah?

Satan deceive many people and God allow that! Evil people deceive right people and God allow that. Ofcourse people have free will so they should not be deceived by their free will. God exam people.

If someone is not being noticed to learn the truth so there is no responsibility. God notice humanbeing in Qur’an about Jesus. who hear so that have responsibility.

There is no change in canon of God. But someone try and change those canons. God to prevent that send prophet Muhammad and Qur’an. God awaken people that there is no God but Allah. Jesus is no God and that cannot be changed by people. People have some responsibility in religion just like Salat, offering, fast(savm) etc. Followers of Jesus were used to perform these worships. Ofcourse the form should be different but the worships were same. Those could not be changed. Jews and Christians changed words of God mean also they apply some parts of words and do not some parts. That is explained in Qur’an very clearly:

78- And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. Al-Imran(3)

For instance Christians say God is three(Trinity) and they try so much to show that as if it is from scripture. But it is not. There is no any verse in Bible or Torah in which it is said God is three or God have three personalities. God is God and unique and has no partner in personality and has no partner in attributions and has no partner in actions and has no partner in property etc.

Shortly there is no change in words of God and Qur’an provide that.

 

[hasantas]

That is interesting, hasantas.

I do not think that quote shows what I was looking for. That another prophet, Muhammad in this case, would follow Jesus. In fact, that quote talks of God the Father – and more importantly, that it is a sin not to believe in Jesus.

Do you know how Christians interpret that text from the Gospel of John? Who Christians believe the Comforter is? How this was defined in sacred Councils 300 years before the Quran was written?

Certainly, anyone can come up with an entirely different meaning to the New Testament (a book which belongs rightly to the Catholic Church, and is interpreted through the Church to which it was given), but I would think you (and Islam itself) would need to explain when, from the time of Jesus to Muhammad, Christians ever viewed the promised coming of the Spirit as if it meant another human prophet would come after Jesus.

In other words, that interpretation has no historical precedent. The apostles and the early Christian Church nowhere believed that another human prophet would come to follow Jesus.

We just celebrated the feast of Pentecost.
In the first century, St. Paul references this feast: “For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia; he was eager to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” Acts 20:16

Catholics interpret Comforter to be Holy Spirit but that not match Jesus. Jesus was a human so comforter must be another human. It is way of God to send human(prophet) to preach people.

 

[reggieM]

Catholics interpret Comforter to be Holy Spirit but that not match Jesus. Jesus was a human so comforter must be another human. It is way of God to send human(prophet) to preach people.

Ok, yes about how Catholics interpret that. Thank you.
Why do you say that Jesus was only human and not the Divine Son of God?

 

[fnr]

Catholics interpret Comforter to be Holy Spirit but that not match Jesus. Jesus was a human so comforter must be another human. It is way of God to send human(prophet) to preach people.

I’m trying to maintain a focus on historical evidence, but the interpretation of John 14:16 as pointing to Muhammad appears in the Sirat ibn Hisham is within the bounds of historical criticism. This text is from the translation I have…

*Ibn Ishaq said, "Among things which reached me about that which had been revealed to Isa the Son of Mary in the Gospel, for his followers, describing the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), according to Yuhannas [JOHN] the Apostle when he inscribed the Gospel for them from the Testament of Isa the Son of Mary, concerning the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), that he said, ‘He who hates me hates the Lord. Except for that I had done in their presence things that no one had done before me, they would not have had a sin. However now they are discontented and think that they will overcome me as well as the Lord, but the word in the Revelation must be done. They hated me falsely. But when the Manhamanna who Allah will send to you and who is a sacred spirit from the Lord, comes, he will be a witness of me and you also because you were with me in the past. I am telling you about this to not have any doubt.’

Manhamanna in Syriac means Muhammad and he is Paraclete in Greek.*

My copy of the Sirat ibn Hisham references John 15:23-26 in a footnote at this point. I will point to the errors in translation and/or reporting the contents of John 15:23-26 by Ibn Hisham. The Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John (fragments which date to as early as the mid-2nd century) includes the word “patera” – or “Father,” where Hisham claims that Ibn Ishaq reported Isa/Jesus saying “Lord.” The Greek words for “Lord” is very different, and widely-used in the Gospels: kyrios. It is not comparable to “Father.” Jesus is known for using the word “Father,” and even the Aramaic “abba” (akin to “daddy”) to describe God.

When Hisham/Ishaq claim that Jesus spoke of the Paraclete referring to Muhammad, it contradicts even the rest of the Gospel of John. In John 20:22-23, Jesus tells his disciples after breathing on them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” In Greek, “holy spirit” in John 20:22 is “πνεῦμα ἅγιον.” So in John’s Gospel, the Holy Spirit arrives LONG before Muhammad was ever born. Jesus clearly wasn’t breathing Muhammad onto his followers.

Muslim authors reinterpreted selected passages from the FOUR gospels to support their claim that Muhammad was God’s rightly-chosen messenger. It’s just another illustration of how Islam continually took Christian (and also Jewish) imagery and texts and edited them to make them say that Muhammad was THE Prophet. It’s ever-present in the Quran, the biographies of the prophet, and the Hadith.

 

[edin]

I will just point you to the book, Quranic Geography by Dan Gibson. He uses aerial photographs of the foundations of the earliest mosques to show that the oldest mosques faced neither Jerusalem nor Mecca, but Petra – the former home of the Nabatean Arabs. Only in mosques built after 822 AD is there a universal orientation toward Mecca. I’m not rejecting history, I’m just looking at objective evidence.

I’m sorry to sound abrupt on my first post but this is comical…

Dan Gibson’s “research” is based on google maps. You can’t know the direction of the Qibla without seeing the floor plans or inside of the Masjid.

As brilliantly outlined in this video by the erudite Mansoor, Smith’s conclusions and leanings on the work Dan Gibson and a certain “Dr Theus” are wild-eyed to the point of giving up on critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Smith’s theory of Petra being the early qibla (and his subsequent theory of Muslims inventing a new history and role for Mecca after the fact) are based on Google Earth images of mosques. Mansoor highlights the obvious problem in this methodology that anybody who offers it a little thought would recognise; one cannot ascertain the qibla via satellite images of mosques.

One must have knowledge of the interior of the mosque, Mansoor mentions floor plans and the mihrab (a niche in the interior of the wall of a mosque denoting the direction of prayer for worshippers in the mosque). Let me emphasise the methodology of folk like Jay Smith. If I showed you a Google Earth image of your local mosque would you be able to ascertain the direction the Muslims at that mosque pray towards? No, of course not. Smith would have folk believe he can do this for ancient mosques!

As pointed out in the video,“Dr Theus” even criticises the methodology of Dan Gibson and how arbitrary it was in terms of deciding where each mosque’s qibla was. One could just as easily decided the qibla was the direction of Hawaii rather than Petra using such a method.

At the end of the day this is an excellent example of how folks with agendas in the revisionists community churn out “research” which is essentially manipulated in attempts to support one’s pre-conceived contentions.

thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/refuting-claim-petra-was-qibla-before.html

 

[fnr]

I’m sorry to sound abrupt on my first post but this is comical…

Dan Gibson’s “research” is based on google maps. You can’t know the direction of the Qibla without seeing the floor plans or inside of the Masjid.

Here is a quote from Mustafa and Hassan’s 2013 paper, “Mosque layout design: An analytical study of mosque layouts in the early Ottoman period,” published in Frontiers of Architectural Research (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095263513000502):

“The mosque is an embodiment of spatial and temporal Islamic laws that directly come from the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. The primary spatial laws indicate the orientation of the mosque to the Kaabah in Makah and the arrangement of the worshipers in parallel rows behind the imam facing the Qiblah wall. Temporal laws dictate the five ritual performances that are to be performed during specific times of the day according to the movement of the sun. These spatial and temporal laws are uniform throughout the Islamic world regardless of cultural and traditional variations.”

I will say that I’d expect that if mosques took over pre-existing Christian or Jewish worship sites, as might be the case during the early conquests, the Qibla wall would not be exactly facing its intended location – you can’t turn buildings once they’re in place. However, Muslim tradition asserts that the qibla was assiduously followed by all Muslims around the world. The fact that Dan Gibson finds a significant change over time, with 822 being the date he identifies as when all new mosques faced Mecca, suggests that there is at least some change in practice over time.

I’ve been inside the cathedral in Cordoba, Spain, which used to be the Masjid there. The mihrab is still present, in the middle of a wall that faces south – and not just a little bit off the true azimuth to Mecca. That’s notable within Muslim architecture, but also within Muslim geopolitics. The Umayyad emir, Abd al-Rahman I, had fled the Abbasid takeover, and set up in Al-Andalus. In the 780s, he began construction on a new mosque that would rival the great mosques in Damascus. If the qibla was so universally recognized at that point, why would he design such an ambitious mosque with a south-facing mihrab? He was looking to establish legitimacy for himself, as he fought both Abbasid and Carolingian opponents. Beyond that, his successors in Cordoba expanded the mosque southward, moving the mihrab wall and reconstructing the mihrab multiple times – all facing south.

It’s a piece of historical evidence that is hard to reconcile with Muslim tradition. It’s not Petra either. So how does it fit? It seems like geopolitics between Umayyad Cordoba and Abbasid Baghdad had a lot to do with how the Muslims prayed!

 

[MartinJordan]

Here is a quote from Mustafa and Hassan’s 2013 paper, “Mosque layout design: An analytical study of mosque layouts in the early Ottoman period,” published in Frontiers of Architectural Research (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095263513000502):

I will say that I’d expect that if mosques took over pre-existing Christian or Jewish worship sites, as might be the case during the early conquests, the Qibla wall would not be exactly facing its intended location – you can’t turn buildings once they’re in place. However, Muslim tradition asserts that the qibla was assiduously followed by all Muslims around the world. The fact that Dan Gibson finds a significant change over time, with 822 being the date he identifies as when all new mosques faced Mecca, suggests that there is at least some change in practice over time.

I’ve been inside the cathedral in Cordoba, Spain, which used to be the Masjid there. The mihrab is still present, in the middle of a wall that faces south – and not just a little bit off the true azimuth to Mecca. That’s notable within Muslim architecture, but also within Muslim geopolitics. The Umayyad emir, Abd al-Rahman I, had fled the Abbasid takeover, and set up in Al-Andalus. In the 780s, he began construction on a new mosque that would rival the great mosques in Damascus. If the qibla was so universally recognized at that point, why would he design such an ambitious mosque with a south-facing mihrab? He was looking to establish legitimacy for himself, as he fought both Abbasid and Carolingian opponents. Beyond that, his successors in Cordoba expanded the mosque southward, moving the mihrab wall and reconstructing the mihrab multiple times – all facing south.

It’s a piece of historical evidence that is hard to reconcile with Muslim tradition. It’s not Petra either. So how does it fit? It seems like geopolitics between Umayyad Cordoba and Abbasid Baghdad had a lot to do with how the Muslims prayed!

Excellent and well thought out! Makes terrific sense. Very interesting and profound. :clapping:

MJ

 

[hasantas]

Ok, yes about how Catholics interpret that. Thank you.
Why do you say that Jesus was only human and not the Divine Son of God?

What do you mean by “Divine Son of God”?

If you mean that soul or essence of Jesus were divine as God! What make you think in that way? Bcause He was born without a father? But that is very easy for God to create a human without father. God had created Adam without any father and mother!

Or is it writen in Bible? No.

Is it in tradition? Yes but not as initially. And there is no valid evidences if it established from reliable sources. For instance It is said that Holy Spirit guided Church! Who can prove that? We know many wrong applications of Church.

There are many conflicts about God to incarnate. God create matter but God do not transform in matter. God is always out of time and space. Jesus was in time and space and Jesus had a material body. Holy Spirit is assumed to be God also. But Holy Spirit travel in space and time. Holy Spirit took form of a dove! All those conflict with divine attributions of God. etc.

There is no any valid evidence for that issue. And most important is that all scriptures(Torah, Bible and Qur’an) say that God is unique and there is no partner in attributions and in personality and in propperty.