Islam and corruption in the bible

[Nine_Two]

A question for the Muslim posters, something I’ve never been able to understand is what evidence does Islam have that the bible has been corrupted?

I know there is the argument about redactions, but given the fact that there are two common versions (LXX and MT), and that both are seperated by redactions, yet have the exact same theology, would indicate that the redactions changed nothing.
If Satan conspired to corrupt the bible through this means then, he was clearly ineffective.

So what actual proof is there of this corruption? Please leave the hyperbole out of answers, I’m just looking for proof.

 

[Hypatia]

This is a common enough belief amongst Muslims, and I am sure you will get plenty of people explaining why, later in this thread.

But the idea is not found in the Qur’an, and, as far as I know, it doesn’t appear in the Islamic tradition until much later. It is certainly not anything like Islamic doctrine.

 

[PlipPlop]

If you believe the Bible has not been corrupted, then you believe it has been one of the most influential books, and the most common one, for 2000 years without being corrupted one bit.

I find that most unlikely.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is a common enough belief amongst Muslims, and I am sure you will get plenty of people explaining why, later in this thread.

But the idea is not found in the Qur’an, and, as far as I know, it doesn’t appear in the Islamic tradition until much later. It is certainly not anything like Islamic doctrine.

Then how does one explain the discrepancies between what the Quran teaches and what the bible teaches?

PlipPlop:

If you believe the Bible has not been corrupted, then you believe it has been one of the most influential books, and the most common one, for 2000 years without being corrupted one bit.

I find that most unlikely.

That’s a non answer if there ever was one. Given that the texts found at Qumrun validate those texts which they hold, and given the age of manuscripts we have and the relative lack of differences (textually) and complete lack (theologically) between them. If you have evidence of corruption, by all means post it, but the argument “It’s really old so it must be” is completely and utterly meaningless, given that we have far older documents completely intact.

 

[hamba2han]

**14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

1. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.
2. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path.
3. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.
4. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the return (of all).
5. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in (the series of) the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things.”** … (Al-Qur’an 5:14-19)

And even renown Christian scholars have acknowledged that there have been numerous alterations in Christian scriptures.

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that:

“…there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar [common people] to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them.”

 

[Reuben_J]

1. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

Who are ‘we’ and who is ‘Allah’ of verse 14. Reading from the verse and the structure of the sentence it would be strange indeed and thus it does not appear as if they are the same persons/person but instead logically it is talking about two different identities.

 

[hamba2han]

Who are ‘we’ and who is ‘Allah’ of verse 14. Reading from the verse and the structure of the sentence it would be strange indeed and thus it does not appear as if they are the same persons/person but instead logically it is talking about two different identities.

When you examine the Qur’anic verse in question in full i.e. 5:14, you should be able to clearly see who the ‘We’ is referring to:

** “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.**

And the following is also a further explanation:

The Meaning of The Pronoun “We” As Used in The Qur’aan
… by Yahya Adel Ibrahim

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. ( Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning):'Verily, We have given you a manifest victory" [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.”

( Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say " We have decided…" etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings):

"And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" [al-Baqarah 2:163]

and

"Say: He is Allaah, the One" [al-Ikhlaas 112:1]

and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.

(Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 109).

 

[Jay53]

When you examine the Qur’anic verse in question in full i.e. 5:14, you should be able to clearly see who the ‘We’ is referring to:

** “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We** took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

And the following is also a further explanation:

The Meaning of The Pronoun “We” As Used in The Qur’aan
… by Yahya Adel Ibrahim

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. ( Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning):'Verily, We have given you a manifest victory" [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.”

( Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say " We have decided…" etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings):

"And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" [al-Baqarah 2:163]

and

"Say: He is Allaah, the One" [al-Ikhlaas 112:1]

and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.

(Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 109).

I think Reuben is referring to the fact that within the same verse, it supposedly switches from 1st person “We” to 3rd person “Allah” which is very unusual/awkward/?? in speaking. Why does “Allah” need to designate respect in the 1st two parts, but not the last?

He could just as easily have said:

“And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and We will inform them of what they used to do.

Reuben can correct me if I’m wrong, but that was how I read his post.

 

[hamba2han]

I think Reuben is referring to the fact that within the same verse, it supposedly switches from 1st person “We” to 3rd person “Allah” which is very unusual/awkward/?? in speaking. Why does “Allah” need to designate respect in the 1st two parts, but not the last?

He could just as easily have said:

“And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and We will inform them of what they used to do.

Reuben can correct me if I’m wrong, but that was how I read his post.

You are asking me to delve into the mind of the Lord on how He constructs the verses in the Qur’an and I am simply not able to do this.

However, from reading the explanation by Yahya Adel Ibrahim which I have given in my earlier post, then it is just not conceivable to me that the ‘We’ in the verses could be referring to anyone but Allah.

 

[Nine_Two]

**14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

1. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide** in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.
2. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path.
3. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.
4. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the return (of all).
5. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in (the series of) the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things.” … (Al-Qur’an 5:14-19)

And even renown Christian scholars have acknowledged that there have been numerous alterations in Christian scriptures.

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that:

“…there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar [common people] to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them.”

Read my question a bit more carefully. First I asked for evidence. What the Koran says is not evidence. Give me something that could hold up in a Western Court of Law.

Second off I dealt with the issue of “alterations”, the question is about corruption.

Finally, if you’re going to quote patristics, give a citation so that it can be checked and read in context. If you’re correct and you’re not just making stuff up, the argument will hold. Attributing words to them without citation is like me claiming “Even Mohammed admitted he was just messing with people.” and then making up some quote.

 

[hamba2han]

Read my question a bit more carefully. First I asked for evidence. What the Koran says is not evidence. Give me something that could hold up in a Western Court of Law.

Second off I dealt with the issue of “alterations”, the question is about corruption.

Finally, if you’re going to quote patristics, give a citation so that it can be checked and read in context. If you’re correct and you’re not just making stuff up, the argument will hold. Attributing words to them without citation is like me claiming “Even Mohammed admitted he was just messing with people.” and then making up some quote.

This is pretty much all the evidence that I would care to find out about.

Whether or not it would “hold up in a Western Court of Law”, I really do not have a clue.

However, the more pertinent question would be → Would these judges who are presiding over the case in this Western Court of Law, themselves end up in Paradise or the Hell-fire?

After all, the destiny of the believer and the unbeliever in the Hereafter is what questions of faith are all about, are they not?

 

[Nine_Two]

This is pretty much all the evidence that I would care to find out about.

Whether or not it would “hold up in a Western Court of Law”, I really do not have a clue.

However, the more pertinent question would be → Would these judges who are presiding over the case in this Western Court of Law, themselves end up in Paradise or the Hell-fire?

After all, the destiny of the believer and the unbeliever in the Hereafter is what questions of faith are all about, are they not?

And yet another site that doesn’t give citations, in addition to making outright gross generalizations and making factual errors (Its discussion on the NRSV for example). Plus most of its time is spent talking about translations, and not the bible itself, which my question was about.

And even if it did, that some people have said things such is that, is not evidence. Please, if you aren’t going to give any evidence, don’t bother with responding, Hamba.

 

[LtTony]

This is a common enough belief amongst Muslims, and I am sure you will get plenty of people explaining why, later in this thread.

But the idea is not found in the Qur’an, and, as far as I know, it doesn’t appear in the Islamic tradition until much later. It is certainly not anything like Islamic doctrine.

I think what you express has significantly been part of my experience in examining the muslim allegation of biblical corruption. I say “part” because in some respects, the Quran seems to affirm the legitimacy of christian scripture, but then elsewhere implies otherwise. At least to me.

Bottom line: every muslim that I recall believes the Bible is corrupted.

Ninety two asked: “A question for the Muslim posters, something I’ve never been able to understand is what evidence does Islam have that the bible has been corrupted?”

I believe it is a slippery issue, or circular. Here’s why: One can’t make an allegation of corruption unless they provide the original. Ask a muslim to provide the original (the so-called injeel), and the answer you often get is, “It’s there in the Gospels.”
Huh?
“Yeah mixed in with all the corrputed stuff,” the muslim continues.
I ask how one can identify the “corrupted” material.
“Whatever is contradicted by the Quarn,” is the reply.

See what I mean? The muslim proof of corruption is the Quran.

 

[LtTony]

**14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

1. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide** in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.
2. Wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of darkness by His will into light, and guides them to a straight path.
3. They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then has the least power against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.
4. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? No, you are but mortals of His creating. He forgives whom He will, and punishes whom He will. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the return (of all).
5. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come unto you to make things plain after a break in (the series of) the messengers, lest you should say: There came not unto us a messenger of cheer nor any Warner. Now has a messenger of cheer and a Warner come unto you. And Allah is Able to do all things.” … (Al-Qur’an 5:14-19)

And even renown Christian scholars have acknowledged that there have been numerous alterations in Christian scriptures.

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that:

“…there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar [common people] to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them.”

As to your last three paragraphs…Bull-loney.
I’ve seen this muslim slight-of-hand pulled before. Lifting quotes out of context to imply something a person DID NOT say is not uncommon. And those are not “renown Christian scholars” you refer to in your “alerations” link from islamreligion.com.

**18. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins?

**What does that (the part I underlined) mean exactly?

**14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

**Forgot? Forgot what? What Mohammad said they forgot?
And “stirred up hate”? Like the sins of hate and anger are exclusive to Jews and Christians? The muslim world is immune to it?

**15. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture. **

Who exactly is “you” that “hid” scripture? God didn’t protect Jesus’ Gospel just as Christ himself promised? Please provide a copy of the original “hidden scripture.”

Christ said explicitly more than once He was the Son of God who would die for us and rise from the dead. He said those that those who do not believe in Him do not know him. You and your so-called source do not know Him, so you are unqualified totalk about anything regarding Him and His church.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think Reuben is referring to the fact that within the same verse, it supposedly switches from 1st person “We” to 3rd person “Allah” which is very unusual/awkward/?? in speaking. Why does “Allah” need to designate respect in the 1st two parts, but not the last?

He could just as easily have said:

“And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and We will inform them of what they used to do.

Reuben can correct me if I’m wrong, but that was how I read his post.

Yes, Jay, that’s what I was referring to.

 

[Reuben_J]

You are asking me to delve into the mind of the Lord on how He constructs the verses in the Qur’an and I am simply not able to do this.

However, from reading the explanation by Yahya Adel Ibrahim which I have given in my earlier post, then it is just not conceivable to me that the ‘We’ in the verses could be referring to anyone but Allah.

Not to disrespect,but maybe the Lord wanted to communicate something else but you misunderstood. In any way you read the verse, it does not make sense to switch from 1st person to 3rd person in the same sentence unless the author inadvertently wanted to mean something else.

I understand the use of ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ for respect or glorification but in verse 14 it should continue to use ‘we’ instead of reverting to Allah in the same sentence.

 

[Nine_Two]

Regardless of corruptions in the Koran, I’m still waiting to hear evidence that the bible is corrupt, and if it is not corrupt, why it blatently contradicts the koran?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I believe it is a slippery issue, or circular. Here’s why: One can’t make an allegation of corruption unless they provide the original. Ask a muslim to provide the original (the so-called injeel), and the answer you often get is, “It’s there in the Gospels.”
Huh?
“Yeah mixed in with all the corrputed stuff,” the muslim continues.
I ask how one can identify the “corrupted” material.
“Whatever is contradicted by the Quarn,” is the reply.

See what I mean? The muslim proof of corruption is the Quran.

The other ironic aspect (and more related to what Nine_Two has asked) is when Muslims turn to secular atheist scholars (who would in turn deny Islam) to prove their point. It’s very similar to how the Jewish leadership sided with their enemy the Romans to condemn Christ, and again to condemn Paul. It is therefore humorous when I see Muslims quoting men like Bart Ehrmann to prove that Islam is the true faith when, in fact, that’s not Ehrmann’s conclusion at all. It’d be like a supporter of a free-market quoting Marx to try to prove the 19th century economy had problems and that capitalism is the answer.

Some other errors commonly made in response to this question:

• The excuse sometimes made by Muslims is that the Council of Nicea propped up the Bible. In fact, the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the Bible, and collections of Christian scripture existed before the council took place. I often ask Muslims who make the claim that Nicea had something to do with scripture to quote me the portion of Nicea that dealt with scripture, and they can’t respond. The ironic thing is that while there is no time in Christian history where it is recorded that influential leaders messed with or played with the manuscripts of scripture, there is evidence of it in Islam with Uthman and the formalization of the Quran. It is therefore interesting that Muslims expect Christians to believe, with no evidence, that Constantine or some other figurehead corrupted the scriptures…and yet then expect Christians to believe, out of pure faith despite evidence that it could have taken place, that Uthman did not tarnish or mess with the Quran.
• Some Muslims try to point out textual variants among the Christian manuscripts, even though the vast majority of these variants do not alter Christian theology and are mostly grammatical. The problem with this is that it presents double standards because it is ultimately a self-defeating argument. The Quran also has textual variants, or variants that are sourced to other companions of the prophet outside of the copy Uthman authorized, and therefore to argue “Textual variants equal corruption” can apply to the Quran as well as the Bible. I even remember in a thread some time ago arguing with a Muslim who had argued that the existence of textual variants, even if they were only grammatical, proved Biblical corruption. I pointed to textual variants in the Quran, and the Muslim responded, “Oh, but those are only grammatical.” Again, double standards.
• A popular Muslim argument is to say, “Oh! Christians don’t have the original manuscripts! So they have no idea what the originals said!” even though the vast number of manuscripts and fragments (some 50,000+) give us a great idea of what the originals said, just as much (if not even more) as most works of antiquity. Furthermore, when I heard a Muslim make this argument in another thread some time ago, I immediately asked where an original copy of the Quran, as held in the hands of Mohammad himself, was preserved. I didn’t get a response. Which, again, hints towards double standards.

In addition to all this, a very important thing to point out is that this was never an allegation made in the NT by the apostles of Christ, let alone any prophets of old. Peter, John and company never told the Jews, “You corrupted scripture!” or “You hid scripture!” They accused them of being ignorant of their scripture, but they responded by quoting scripture. In fact, the NT is full of OT citations. By contrast, the Quran has not a single OT or NT citation. It makes vague references to certain stories and names names, but there is not one single direct citation made. We must then wonder why, if God confirmed revelation that came before in the Gospels, why He would suddenly turn around and tell His followers to just ignore all the revelations that came before and to just trust this one. If we say the Jews corrupted their scripture, why didn’t the apostles accuse the Jews of doing so? And if we say that all the Christians and Jews tarnished all their scriptures between 33 AD and 600 AD, then we have one of the greatest conspiracies in the history of mankind.

 

[abucs]

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. ( Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

Sorry to get off topic.

Hi Hamba,

are you able to show/cite pre Koranic Arabic verses which would support this established Arabic literary style ?

If not, is there evidence for a similar literary style at the same time (or a little after) the Koran was delivered ?

Thanks.

 

[LtTony]

The other ironic aspect (and more related to what Nine_Two has asked) is when Muslims turn to secular atheist scholars (who would in turn deny Islam) to prove their point. It’s very similar to how the Jewish leadership sided with their enemy the Romans to condemn Christ, and again to condemn Paul. It is therefore humorous when I see Muslims quoting men like Bart Ehrmann to prove that Islam is the true faith when, in fact, that’s not Ehrmann’s conclusion at all. It’d be like a supporter of a free-market quoting Marx to try to prove the 19th century economy had problems and that capitalism is the answer.

Some other errors commonly made in response to this question:

• The excuse sometimes made by Muslims is that the Council of Nicea propped up the Bible. In fact, the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the Bible, and collections of Christian scripture existed before the council took place. I often ask Muslims who make the claim that Nicea had something to do with scripture to quote me the portion of Nicea that dealt with scripture, and they can’t respond. The ironic thing is that while there is no time in Christian history where it is recorded that influential leaders messed with or played with the manuscripts of scripture, there is evidence of it in Islam with Uthman and the formalization of the Quran. It is therefore interesting that Muslims expect Christians to believe, with no evidence, that Constantine or some other figurehead corrupted the scriptures…and yet then expect Christians to believe, out of pure faith despite evidence that it could have taken place, that Uthman did not tarnish or mess with the Quran.
• Some Muslims try to point out textual variants among the Christian manuscripts, even though the vast majority of these variants do not alter Christian theology and are mostly grammatical. The problem with this is that it presents double standards because it is ultimately a self-defeating argument. The Quran also has textual variants, or variants that are sourced to other companions of the prophet outside of the copy Uthman authorized, and therefore to argue “Textual variants equal corruption” can apply to the Quran as well as the Bible. I even remember in a thread some time ago arguing with a Muslim who had argued that the existence of textual variants, even if they were only grammatical, proved Biblical corruption. I pointed to textual variants in the Quran, and the Muslim responded, “Oh, but those are only grammatical.” Again, double standards.
• A popular Muslim argument is to say, “Oh! Christians don’t have the original manuscripts! So they have no idea what the originals said!” even though the vast number of manuscripts and fragments (some 50,000+) give us a great idea of what the originals said, just as much (if not even more) as most works of antiquity. Furthermore, when I heard a Muslim make this argument in another thread some time ago, I immediately asked where an original copy of the Quran, as held in the hands of Mohammad himself, was preserved. I didn’t get a response. Which, again, hints towards double standards.

In addition to all this, a very important thing to point out is that this was never an allegation made in the NT by the apostles of Christ, let alone any prophets of old. Peter, John and company never told the Jews, “You corrupted scripture!” or “You hid scripture!” They accused them of being ignorant of their scripture, but they responded by quoting scripture. In fact, the NT is full of OT citations. By contrast, the Quran has not a single OT or NT citation. It makes vague references to certain stories and names names, but there is not one single direct citation made. We must then wonder why, if God confirmed revelation that came before in the Gospels, why He would suddenly turn around and tell His followers to just ignore all the revelations that came before and to just trust this one. If we say the Jews corrupted their scripture, why didn’t the apostles accuse the Jews of doing so? And if we say that all the Christians and Jews tarnished all their scriptures between 33 AD and 600 AD, then we have one of the greatest conspiracies in the history of mankind.

Thanks for fleshing out the point, byz.

“The other ironic aspect (and more related to what Nine_Two has asked) is when Muslims turn to secular atheist scholars (who would in turn deny Islam) to prove their point.”
Exactly. That was essentially my point by mentioning alleged scholars, but you provided an important, additional detail. Bart Ehrmann, LOL.

“The excuse sometimes made by Muslims is that the Council of Nicea propped up the Bible.”

Yep. I forgot about that myth, which seemed to really get legs with the internet. Unfortunately, too many christians are not familiar enough with that council. I believe the big question there was the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, was it not, affirmed 308 to 1 or something?

“Some Muslims try to point out textual variants among the Christian manuscripts, even though the vast majority of these variants do not alter Christian theology and are mostly grammatical.”

Another good point. Or they mention the Catholic Bible has 7 more OT books. I can’t think of a single, significant doctrinal difference based on different translations or the 7 OT books.

“By contrast, the Quran has not a single OT or NT citation.”

I’m glad you mentioned that. There’s maybe a dozen paragraphs on Jesus in the Koran. Yet muslims pretend to the experts on Christ.
And try finding the 10 Commandments in Koran. It isn’t easy. Moses barely gets a mention.