Quran must verify what we (Jews and Christians) have

[De_Maria]

Muslims say that the Bible is corrupt. But the Quran doesn’t say that.

*But say, “We (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One” * (29:46 AYA).

In the Quran, Allah also says that:

And when there came to them an Apostle from Allah** verifying that which they have, **a party of those who were given the Book threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they knew nothing. S. 2:101 Shakir

Now, for many years, Mohammed put together a Quran. But mysteriously, after he died, Uthman burned the originals of that which Mohammed had put together and installed his own Quran.

Now, since Allah says that the Quran confirms the previous Scriptures. And since the Uthmanic Rescension contradicts the previous Scriptures. Doesn’t that mean the Uthmanic Rescension is corrupt?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[inJESUS]

Now, since Allah says that the Quran confirms the previous Scriptures. And since the Uthmanic Rescension contradicts the previous Scriptures. Doesn’t that mean the Uthmanic Rescension is corrupt?

since they just can’t come to this conclusion, they must re-interpret the Quranic verses in a way to give the impression that previous sciptures are corrupt…but we all understand what we are reading : at Muhammad’s time, scriptures were NOT corrupt, so when were they corrupt?

 

[zerinus]

Muslims say that the Bible is corrupt. But the Quran doesn’t say that.

*But say, “We (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One” * (29:46 AYA).

In the Quran, Allah also says that:

And when there came to them an Apostle from Allah** verifying** that which they have, a party of those who were given the Book threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they knew nothing. S. 2:101 Shakir

Now, for many years, Mohammed put together a Quran. But mysteriously, after he died, Uthman burned the originals of that which Mohammed had put together and installed his own Quran.

Now, since Allah says that the Quran confirms the previous Scriptures. And since the Uthmanic Rescension contradicts the previous Scriptures. Doesn’t that mean the Uthmanic Rescension is corrupt?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes, you have made a good point.

It is a long time ago since I read the Koran, and I can’t remember now all of its details. As far as I recall, the Koran does say that the Bible has been changed. But at the same time, it enjoins the Moslems to study it, and learn God’s will from it, which suggests that it still considers it to be the word and will of God. It does not suggest that the Bible is so corrupt that it is worthless as a source of theology—which is what Moslems imply.

Moslem theologians do not use the Bible as a source of their theology. They only use the Koran and Hadith. That is contrary to what the Koran itself teaches. For example, if I recall correctly, the Koran does not give detailed instructions about Islamic dietary laws. But it says simply, “what we have made lawful for them (the Jews) we have made lawful for you” (or words to that effect). In other words, it is referring the Moslems to the Bible to learn their dietary laws. But the Moslems never use the Bible as a source of their theology—not even as a secondary source. Their primary source is the Koran, and their secondary source is the Hadith. The Bible doesn’t even come third after that! That is contrary to the specific instructions of the Koran.

zerinus

 

[inJESUS]

As far as I recall, the Koran does say that the Bible has been changed. if this is so, it’d be a huge contradiction in the Quran. Yet the Quran talks about SOME people who MISINTERPRET the meaning, not about all people or even about textual corruptiion or even the scriptures because in other verses, it attests to those who follow the previous scriptures with reverence.

Otherwise, how can Muhammad CONFIRM a corrupt book?

 

[zerinus]

if this is so, it’d be a huge contradiction in the Quran. Yet the Quran talks about SOME people who MISINTERPRET the meaning, not about all people or even about textual corruptiion or even the scriptures because in other verses, it attests to those who follow the previous scriptures with reverence.

Otherwise, how can Muhammad CONFIRM a corrupt book?

You could be right. As I said, I read the Koran (in English) many years ago, and I can’t remember now accurately everything that is in it. But I vaguely remember reading something like that. The English translation that I read was Pickthall’s, and I still think that it is the best translation.

zerinus

 

[planten]

Yes, you have made a good point.

It is a long time ago since I read the Koran, and I can’t remember now all of its details. As far as I recall, the Koran does say that the Bible has been changed. But at the same time, it enjoins the Moslems to study it, and learn God’s will from it, which suggests that it still considers it to be the word and will of God. It does not suggest that the Bible is so corrupt that it is worthless as a source of theology—which is what Moslems imply.

Moslem theologians do not use the Bible as a source of their theology. They only use the Koran and Hadith. That is contrary to what the Koran itself teaches. For example, if I recall correctly, the Koran does not give detailed instructions about Islamic dietary laws. But it says simply, “what we have made lawful for them (the Jews) we have made lawful for you” (or words to that effect). In other words, it is referring the Moslems to the Bible to learn their dietary laws. But the Moslems never use the Bible as a source of their theology—not even as a secondary source. Their primary source is the Koran, and their secondary source is the Hadith. The Bible doesn’t even come third after that! That is contrary to the specific instructions of the Koran.

zerinus

**It is a very good post and well described, as much as it could be. The Muslims believe that Jesus was given the Injeel (bible) That was revelation. It was correct from God. But over the time, words were altered. Some words only. Not all bible is altered. Whatever is there, we believe it.
But the alteration is of two types, the alteration in words and the alteration in the meaning of things. Both types of changes have occurred over the time.

Things like that happen. Even in the MUSLIMS, it has happened but it is only of one type. That is, the words are not altered and cannot be altered. But the meaning of some most important verses is lost.
There was Noah. Then came Abraham. Then Issac and Jacob. Then Joseph and MOSES and Joshua. Revealtions continued till the time of Jesus and continued till Muhammad. That is what we believe. We believe in all the messengers of Allah (God) and Moses and Jesus were messengers of God.

If we deny even one messenger of God, we cannot be Muslims.**

 

[zerinus]

You could be right. As I said, I read the Koran (in English) many years ago, and I can’t remember now accurately everything that is in it. But I vaguely remember reading something like that. The English translation that I read was Pickthall’s, and I still think that it is the best translation.

zerinus

OK, I searched the Internet, and found some references:

3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: “We hear and we disobey”; and “Hear what is not Heard”; and “Ra’ina”; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: “We hear and we obey”; and “Do hear”; and “Do look at us”; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.

5:13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them—barring a few—ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind. >----this verse refers to the Jews

2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?—Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: “Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good.” But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed. Source.

I think the last three quotes can be understood to mean that the Bible was actually changed, not just misinterpreted. But I suppose you could interpret it the other way as well, if you insist.

zerinus

 

[St_Aloysius]

As a Muslim, one must believe in the Gospel and the Law (hence why they call Isa, that is, Christ, Messiah and Prophet and abstain from pork, etc.)… HOWEVER, they unanimously reject the epistles, I believe, and assert that small alterations were made to the text over time (e.g., in passages asserting Christ’s divinity and in the account of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, as they hold the son mentioned to have been Ishmael).

Also, the idea of Muhammad as the last and greatest Prophet is not explicity stated in Qur’an, but it is universally accepted in Islam, if I’m correct. It is almost like Sacred Tradition, and an indespinsible belief.

Also, they believe that Christ was born of a Virgin Birth and that both he and his Mother were sinless. Muslims and Catholics are on the same page here, even if their account’s details are slightly different.

 

[De_Maria]

It is a very good post and well described, as much as it could be. The Muslims believe that Jesus was given the Injeel (bible) That was revelation. It was correct from God. But over the time, words were altered. Some words only. Not all bible is altered. Whatever is there, we believe it.
But the alteration is of two types, the alteration in words and the alteration in the meaning of things. Both types of changes have occurred over the time.

**

Muslims keep making that claim but the Quran itself does not make that claim. Therefore Muslims are making a claim here that is not in the Quran.

Therefore the burden of proof is on the Muslim who believes the Bible is corrupt. You must provide the proof. Simply saying so is not proof.

However, you had an original Quran, which was burnt and a copy substituted. The copy says that the Quran verifies the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures. Yet the copy itself contradicts the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore it appears it is the copy which is in error.

Things like that happen. Even in the MUSLIMS, it has happened but it is only of one type. That is, the words are not altered and cannot be altered. But the meaning of some most important verses is lost.
There was Noah. Then came Abraham. Then Issac and Jacob. Then Joseph and MOSES and Joshua. Revealtions continued till the time of Jesus and continued till Muhammad. That is what we believe. We believe in all the messengers of Allah (God) and Moses and Jesus were messengers of God.

If we deny even one messenger of God, we cannot be Muslims.

---

But truth does not contradict itself. If the Quran is true, the Christian and Hebrew texts must be false. And if the Hebrew and Christian texts are true, then the Quran must be false.

The Quran says the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures are true.

The Quran says the Quran must verify the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures.

The Quran known as the Uthman Rescension contradicts the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures.

Therefore, the Quran known as the Uthman Rescension must be wrong.

Sincerely,

De Maria**

 

[swariffin]

Moslem theologians do not use the Bible as a source of their theology. They only use the Koran and Hadith. That is contrary to what the Koran itself teaches. For example, if I recall correctly, the Koran does not give detailed instructions about Islamic dietary laws. But it says simply, “what we have made lawful for them (the Jews) we have made lawful for you” (or words to that effect). In other words, it is referring the Moslems to the Bible to learn their dietary laws. But the Moslems never use the Bible as a source of their theology—not even as a secondary source. Their primary source is the Koran, and their secondary source is the Hadith. The Bible doesn’t even come third after that! That is contrary to the specific instructions of the Koran.

zerinus

Dear Zerinus,

Perhaps my posting is not just for zerinus only. It will be unfair for me to expect so. My seventh-day-advent-“christian” friend do not eat seafood (crabs, squids, clams) because it was mentioned in the OT (Leviticus 11). Why do the muslims eat seafood? For me, the muslim dietary laws were either not from the OT or did not correctly quote the OT.

 

[paarsurrey]

For example, if I recall correctly, the Koran does not give detailed instructions about Islamic dietary laws.

Hi

I think you have forgotten, or you have missed reading some chapters; Quran provides full essential dietary instructions/laws .

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Moslem theologians do not use the Bible as a source of their theology. They only use the Koran and Hadith. zerinus

Hi

GodAllahYHWH has provided us three sources of guidance. First the ScripturesProper that is Quran, the pristine Word of GodAllahYHWHWe.Second is Acts of ProphetMessengerProper that is called Sunnah, these are acts done by ProphetMessenger to demonstrate commandments given in Quran which is difficult to do unless demonstrated, in this way they are in a sense originally within Quran.

The Third is TraditionProper or Hadith, the says of the ProphetMessenger collected 200/250 years after the Muhammad, and hence are only to be followed if these are not against the first two sources of guidance i.e. Quran and Sunnah as described above. If these are against Quran and Sunnah or and cannot be reconciled with appropriate interpretation, then these are to be rejected.

I think you please undestand it accordingly.

I am of the opinion if this classification is adopted by our Jews and Christian brethren in humanity, many of their scriptural and spiritual problems would be solved.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

As far as I recall, the Koran does say that the Bible has been changed. But at the same time, it enjoins the Moslems to study itzerinus

Hi

As we Muslims understand , there is no moral or spiritual need that has not been fullfilled in Quran; so for guidance we need no other book to follow.

It is only out of respect for other religions and as a goodwill gesture that Quran exhorts us to study Torah and Injeel additionally , to make an international and interfaith brotherhood which is the need of the hour.

Thanks for your good post, naturally we don’t have to agree on every point, nevertheless, you have pointed out things gently which I feel is a specialty generally with the Catholics from a whole lot of Christians we find on other forums.

Thanks

 

[De_Maria]

Hi

GodAllahYHWH has provided us three sources of guidance. First the ScripturesProper that is Quran, the pristine Word of GodAllahYHWHWe.Second is Acts of ProphetMessengerProper that is called Sunnah, these are acts done by ProphetMessenger to demonstrate commandments given in Quran which is difficult to do unless demonstrated, in this way they are in a sense originally within Quran.

The Third is TraditionProper or Hadith, the says of the ProphetMessenger collected 200/250 years after the Muhammad, and hence are only to be followed if these are not against the first two sources of guidance i.e. Quran and Sunnah as described above. If these are against Quran and Sunnah or and cannot be reconciled with appropriate interpretation, then these are to be rejected.

I think you please undestand it accordingly.

I am of the opinion if this classification is adopted by our Jews and Christian brethren in humanity, many of their scriptural and spiritual problems would be solved.

Thanks

Sounds like Mohammed tried to copy the Catholic model. But the Islamic foundation is false. Mohammed can’t prove he had a divine revelation because he did not have a divne revelation and Mohammed’s original Quran was burnt. The Quran does not say that the Scriptures are corrupt but advises us to obey our Scriptures and we will be safe. The Quran also says it is supposed to verify the Scriptures. But since it doesn’t, it must be false. Therefore your traditions are built upon error and falsehood…

Now if you were to study the Catholic Church, you would see that our Faith is built on the Word of God in Sacred Tradition and Scripture. Those Sacred Traditions are absolute and don’t change. We further have disciplinary traditions which may change according to need.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

OK, I searched the Internet, and found some references:3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: “We hear and we disobey”; and “Hear what is not Heard”; and “Ra’ina”; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: “We hear and we obey”; and “Do hear”; and “Do look at us”; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.

5:13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them—barring a few—ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind. >----this verse refers to the Jews

2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?—Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: “Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good.” But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed. Source.I think the last three quotes can be understood to mean that the Bible was actually changed, not just misinterpreted. But I suppose you could interpret it the other way as well, if you insist.

zerinus

If that is true, then we have a claim without proof.

First Mohammed says the “People of the Book” should obey their Scriptures.

Now you say that Mohammed says the Scriptures are corrupt.

When did the Scriptures become corrupt and where are the original, uncorrupt books to which we may compare the Quran and the allegedly corrupt Bible?

Since there is no history of a wholesale destruction of original Bibles in order to prevent anyone comparing the copies back to them. And there is a record of such a destruction of original Qurans in order to prevent anyone comparing to them. Then I would say, the burden of proof is on the Muslims who are making the claim of corruption to provide proof that our Scriptures are corrupt by showing an original Bible which agrees with the Uthmanic Quran.

In addition, since they claim there is no corruption in the Uthmanic Quran compared to Mohammed’s Quran, it is also their burden of proof to show that this is true because they burned the original Quran and their own documents prove there were discrepancies in the so called “memorized” Quran which is the alleged foundation of the Uthmanic Quran.

The Islamic religion rests on very shaky ground. I really am surprised that so many people believe in it. That in itself, is a miracle of sorts. I grant you that much.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[zerinus]

If that is true, then we have a claim without proof.

First Mohammed says the “People of the Book” should obey their Scriptures.

Now you say that Mohammed says the Scriptures are corrupt.

When did the Scriptures become corrupt and where are the original, uncorrupt books to which we may compare the Quran and the allegedly corrupt Bible?

Since there is no history of a wholesale destruction of original Bibles in order to prevent anyone comparing the copies back to them. And there is a record of such a destruction of original Qurans in order to prevent anyone comparing to them. Then I would say, the burden of proof is on the Muslims who are making the claim of corruption to provide proof that our Scriptures are corrupt by showing an original Bible which agrees with the Uthmanic Quran.

In addition, since they claim there is no corruption in the Uthmanic Quran compared to Mohammed’s Quran, it is also their burden of proof to show that this is true because they burned the original Quran and their own documents prove there were discrepancies in the so called “memorized” Quran which is the alleged foundation of the Uthmanic Quran.

The Islamic religion rests on very shaky ground. I really am surprised that so many people believe in it. That in itself, is a miracle of sorts. I grant you that much.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You have to ask those questions from Moslems. I was merely providing evidence for inJESUS for comments I had made earlier.

zerinus

 

[planten]

**
It is not necessary for Quran to authenticate everything of the bible. Quran will support the right things only. We have shown that there is not even one bad word against Jesus or Mary or any other prophet in the Quran. If necessary, any one can check up.

But we see many things against many prophets are quite bad in the bible. There are all sorts of good and bad things in the bible. Quran cannot approve all that,. Quran has told its own version of the incidents with maximum praise of the prophets.

Then Quran has taught respect and belief in all prophets/ messengers of God. That is universal. It is not found in the bible. If I remember correctly, the words of Jesus have been described that every one who came before him was a robber or misleader. How can Quan approve that??**

 

[inJESUS]

OK, I searched the Internet, and found some references:

3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

4:46. **Of the Jews **there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: “We hear and we disobey”; and “Hear what is not Heard”; and “Ra’ina”; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: “We hear and we obey”; and “Do hear”; and “Do look at us”; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.

2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?—Seeing that** a party of them **heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: "Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good." But **the transgressors among them **changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed. Source.

I think the last three quotes can be understood to mean that the Bible was actually changed, not just misinterpreted. But I suppose you could interpret it the other way as well, if you insist.

 

[inJESUS]

**It is a very good post and well described, as much as it could be. The Muslims believe that Jesus was given the Injeel (bible) That was revelation. It was correct from God. But over the time, words were altered. Some words only. Not all bible is altered. Whatever is there, we believe it.

But the alteration is of two types, the alteration in words and the alteration in the meaning of things. Both types of changes have occurred over the time.**

 

[inJESUS]

**

It is not necessary for Quran to authenticate everything of the bible.**