Read the Qur'an

[Sam_777]

Inaccurate is a nicer word

MJ

When Quran says that “they killed him not, nor crucified him” (Quran 4:157) then that is a very big fundamental **“FALSE”
**

 

[MartinJordan]

When Quran says that “they killed him not, nor crucified him” (Quran 4:157) then that is a very big fundamental **“FALSE”
**

Sam you have point and I can understand this is very frustrating. But think about it…;when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son the Qur’an doesn’t state the name of the Son when we all know it was Isaac. If Islam can get this fundamental fact wrong Surah 4:157 then is not surprising at all.

MJ

 

[Trebor135]

Sam you have point and I can understand this is very frustrating. But think about it…;when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son the Qur’an doesn’t state the name of the Son when we all know it was Isaac. If Islam can get this fundamental fact wrong Surah 4:157 then is not surprising at all.

That the Qur’an does not tell us which of his sons Abraham sacrificed points to its incompleteness and human origins.

How is not mentioning something the same as making a factual mistake outright?

 

[Trebor135]

Basic knowledge of Islam and English translation only will not help you refute some Islamic scholars claims

I agree.

who use Taqiyya…

The Wikipedia article says that Muslims, especially Shi’a, consider it acceptable to lie or deceive others about their religious status when their life seems to be in danger. The article does not say, however, that Muslims, Sunni or Shi’a, deem it acceptable to lie or mislead others when an inconvenient question is asked or an embarrassing issue is raised regarding their religion.

 

[MartinJordan]

That the Qur’an does not tell us which of his sons Abraham sacrificed points to its incompleteness and human origins.

How is not mentioning something the same as making a factual mistake outright?

Ok glad you asked.

Go through Galatians 4:21-31.

Then recall how Isaac and Jesus are connected . It would help to look at other Qur’an verses about how Jesus was " made to look " as if he was crucified (no doubt by Quranic writers to confuse Christians) then refer to Galatians 3:1-27.

MJ

 

[landon13]

Thank y’all for your feedback. On another note…does anyone know a good online program that is preferably free that can teach me to at least read and pronounce Arabic?

 

[aspirant]

It would help to look at other Qur’an verses about how Jesus was " made to look " as if he was crucified

It’s not that Jesus was made to look as if he was crucified, according to the Qur’an, it’s that it appeared to some people that he was crucified:

“And they said we have killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise,” (Qur’an 4:157-158).

I know that may seem a fine distinction, but it allows, for example, some Muslims to adopt the idea that Judas was made to look like Jesus and that Judas was crucified while Jesus was OK and not directly involved at all.

 

[MartinJordan]

It’s not that Jesus was made to look as if he was crucified, according to the Qur’an, it’s that it appeared to some people that he was crucified:

“And they said we have killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise,” (Qur’an 4:157-158).
[/end quote]

Thanks for the clarification…not that it changes the inaccuracies of Jesus “crucifixion”

As I am not and frankly trying not to be well versed in Quranic scholarship, how much of the Qur’an actually even talks about the Romans leadership during Jesus’ time? I don’t expect,there is much information…but I could be wrong. The former is important in order to have any sort of bonafide context and close examination of why it appeared to some that Jesus was crucified or something else because as it stands to me it is completely vague and without merit.

600 years is a long time to easily lose accuracy of events. I have recently found that Islamic scholars are not unified in the facts from Hadiths and other extent Islamic writings that Jesus did not die.

I know that may seem a fine distinction, but it allows, for example, some Muslims to adopt the idea that Judas was made to look like Jesus and that Judas was crucified while Jesus was OK and not directly involved at all.

 

[aspirant]

Thanks for the clarification…not that it changes the inaccuracies of Jesus “crucifixion”

Yes, I agree-- either way the Qur’an is wrong on this point. All the ancient texts which do not presume a priori that Jesus could not have a material body (e.g. docetic and later Gnostic texts) agree that Jesus was crucified. Even non-Christian texts, while differing in other details, accept that Jesus was crucified:
"Tacitus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Talmud:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that “[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him.” But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

It is also generally agreed among scholars that, even if apparent Christian interpolations into Josephus’ Antiquities are removed, the original would still include something like this:

Josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The assertion of the Qur’an that Jesus really was a historical person with a material body but was not crucified is, then, a novelty without any prior support. In light of this, I think Fr. Jomier is right on this point:
Jacques Jomier:

So healthy logic would require anyone who denied the crucifixion to advance some proof. In practice, the only proof that Muslims produce is the Qur’an. Any affirmation which falls within the logical category of the “possible” and which seems to go against an affirmation of the Qur’an is rejected. If it is a historical fact, arguments will always be found to minimize the ancient witnesses, relativize knowledge based on the senses and argue, as sceptics used to, that human beings are subject to all sorts of illusions… Such an attitude has as its first principle that only the Qur’an is a source of absolutely certain knowledge on this earth. Its truth is absolute, since for the Muslim it has been revealed by God and has then been protected against all alteration. In that case reality will be seen through the grid formed by the affirmations of the Qur’an.

That’s quite a mental box.

how much of the Qur’an actually even talks about the Romans leadership during Jesus’ time?

I could be mistaken, but I don’t think there’s much significant reference to the setting of Jesus’ life. I should probably reread the accounts.

Is this from Hadiths or relatively recent by likes of Deedat and Naik?

I’m thinking of a worse source, the medieval Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, I agree-- either way the Qur’an is wrong on this point. All the ancient texts which do not presume a priori that Jesus could not have a material body (e.g. docetic and later Gnostic texts) agree that Jesus was crucified. Even non-Christian texts, while differing in other details, accept that Jesus was crucified:

My jury rests Much thanks

It is also generally agreed among scholars that, even if apparent Christian interpolations into Josephus’ Antiquities are removed, the original would still include something like this:

And these are non-Christians who get nothing out of proclaiming Jesus death!

The assertion of the Qur’an that Jesus really was a historical person with a material body but was not crucified is, then, a novelty without any prior support. In light of this, I think Fr. Jomier is right on this point:

That’s quite a mental box.

Healthy logic…now makes me think of Muslim intellects pre- A.D1000’s renowned for their logic studies who influenced respected Jews like Maimonides. I wonder whether they (Muslim intellects of that era) ever studied Jesus crucifixion and the circumstances that lead to it by using historical sources. Should make a very interesting Dissertation

I could be mistaken, but I don’t think there’s much significant reference to the setting of Jesus’ life. I should probably reread the accounts.

If it was extensive by any stretch perhaps you may have remembered…
Will you be examining it?

I’m thinking of a worse source, the medieval Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas.

To be fair to the Qur’an we can only presume there was an influence and I doubt we can find any evidence extent Islamic writings that delve into it.

It will be too much of an Achilles heel. Just thinking. Feel free to interject and correct me.

MJ

 

[aspirant]

And these are non-Christians who get nothing out of proclaiming Jesus death!

It might be argued, I guess, that Romans and rabbis gained some satisfaction in the view that a troublemaker preaching error (as they understood it) was executed. That’s not much motive for total fabrication. And it would be ridiculous to suggest that someone like Tacitus was somehow colluding with Christians, who also had no good reason to fabricate a crucifixion that didn’t happen, in the matter.

I have seen an alternate interpretation of Qur’an 4:157-158 by a non-Muslim. The gist of the interpretation is that the Qur’an does not deny that Jesus was crucified but rather that the Qur’an denies Jewish people crucified Jesus. I doubt many Muslims concur with this interpretation, though; the majority appear to interpret it to mean Jesus was never crucified.

I wonder whether they (Muslim intellects of {an earlier} era) ever studied Jesus crucifixion and the circumstances that lead to it by using historical sources.

I don’t know. That could make an interesting study for someone.

Will you be examining it?

I skimmed some Qur’anic texts about Jesus, but I don’t see any with much information regarding setting apart from the story of the nativity (in the Qur’an, Mary gives birth by a brook under a date tree). The only allusion Romans that I saw appeared to be a reference to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70: “And when the prophecy of your {Israelites’} next transgression came to be fulfilled, We sent another army {Romans?} to afflict you and to enter the Temple as the former entered it before {Assyrians?}, utterly destroying all that they laid their hands on,” (17:7).

 

[Sam_777]

The Wikipedia article says that Muslims, especially Shi’a, consider it acceptable to lie or deceive others about their religious status when their life seems to be in danger. The article does not say, however, that Muslims, Sunni or Shi’a, deem it acceptable to lie or mislead others when an inconvenient question is asked or an embarrassing issue is raised regarding their religion.

The Wikipedia article states “it’s some sort of religious dissimulation”, I use that since it’s the best English translation to describe it.

However, the practical use of it can also be if “inconvenient question is asked” or “embarrassing issue is raised”, and there are many Arabic references for that.

 

[padrepio_2012]

To the OP, if you want to learn to read 'Arabic go to either omniglot.com and look for Arabic. They have the alphabet and tons of links for materials. or go to Google and type in "shariah program free Arabic alphabet course " and it’ll teach you the alphabet and pronunciation from a native speaker. That is how I learned Arabic at home before I studied it in school

 

[Sam_777]

To the OP, if you want to learn to read 'Arabic go to either omniglot.com and look for Arabic. They have the alphabet and tons of links for materials. or go to Google and type in "shariah program free Arabic alphabet course " and it’ll teach you the alphabet and pronunciation from a native speaker. That is how I learned Arabic at home before I studied it in school

Why would someone go to “shariah program” instead of “secular program” to learn Arabic !!!

 

[Augustine3]

Hello,

I am Catholic and am wondering, is it o.k. for me to read a translation of the Qur’an to be able to interpret it for myself when discussing with Islamic friends? I do not know how to read Arabic currently so I would be reading it in English. I know that I must treat it with respect as Muslims treat the Qur’an (not writing in it, not damaging it, &c.,) Also, is there anything I should know besides a basic background of Islam before I read it?

Thank you and God bless!

I highly recommend you get the Quran translated by Yusuf Ali, his translation is a fairly accurate one from Arabic to English plus there is the added bonus of commentaries.

From an apologetic point of view I suggest you familiarize yourself with the typical Muslim arguments based on the Quran such as the alleged scientific proofs and popular verses like 4:157, 2:79 etc. I also recommend you get acquainted with some of the top Muslim apologetic arguments given by Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ali etc. there’s plenty of debates by these men on YouTube.

All the best and God bless.

 

[Trishie]

Wouldn’t a better place to begin be a great familiarity with the gospel and with the teachings of the Church, eg, a deep in depth study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available in full online) and the Church’s teachings and Catholic apologetic.
I think you could find that Muslims won’t be concerned with learning from you but rather with converting you. Best to have a truly strong foundation in our own faith, would you not think?

 

[landon13]

To the OP, if you want to learn to read 'Arabic go to either omniglot.com and look for Arabic. They have the alphabet and tons of links for materials. or go to Google and type in "shariah program free Arabic alphabet course " and it’ll teach you the alphabet and pronunciation from a native speaker. That is how I learned Arabic at home before I studied it in school

Thanks for your suggestions. I think that you are right that if I want to read Arabic to discuss the Qur’an with Muslims, then I need to learn it from a kinda Shariah program teaching it for Muslims. Thats what I was thinking would be the best option to learn.

 

[landon13]

I highly recommend you get the Quran translated by Yusuf Ali, his translation is a fairly accurate one from Arabic to English plus there is the added bonus of commentaries.

From an apologetic point of view I suggest you familiarize yourself with the typical Muslim arguments based on the Quran such as the alleged scientific proofs and popular verses like 4:157, 2:79 etc. I also recommend you get acquainted with some of the top Muslim apologetic arguments given by Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ali etc. there’s plenty of debates by these men on YouTube.

All the best and God bless.

I do have the Qur’an translated by Yusuf Ali since I heard it was one of the better and one thing that singles this one out for me is that unlike many that say “God” this one says “Allah” . For some reason I don’t like reading it when it uses God instead of the Arabic name for God which is Allah. Just a Catholic pet peeve of mine. haha.

I will google some of the debates between Catholics/Christians and Muslims to familiarize myself with arguments about the Qur’an and Islam. I will also take time to mark some important verses in the Qur’an to be ready to use when debating a Muslim.

 

[landon13]

Wouldn’t a better place to begin be a great familiarity with the gospel and with the teachings of the Church, eg, a deep in depth study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available in full online) and the Church’s teachings and Catholic apologetic.
I think you could find that Muslims won’t be concerned with learning from you but rather with converting you. Best to have a truly strong foundation in our own faith, would you not think?

I do have a very strong foundation in my faith as a Catholic. I would never study the Qur’an without a deep rooted study of Sacred Scripture and the Catechism. I am actually waiting to finish a second reading of the Catechism before I really dive into the Qur’an. I think for anyone to argue something you need to see both sides of the aisle. Like when I argue with Protestants about Protestant theology I can say I know both arguments because I am a former Protestant.

 

[Robin_des_Bois]

If you’re talking to Sunnis, two quick things:

1. Check out the commentaries on the Qur’an by such greatly-esteemed scholars as Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, and Razi. These will help you understand the text through a conservative Islamic lens, without attempts at whitewashing the religion by those who might have an agenda to make Islam seem harmless to Westerners.
2. Also read the Hadith–the other primary source for Muslims that is often overlooked. The two most important and authoritative collections are Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

If you’re talking to Shi’as, other posters will have to advise.

Our most esteemed Qur’an commentor is Tabtaba’i, but only a small part of his work was translated to English. There’s also Pooya/Ali commentary, but I dunno how esteemed they are.

And Sunni Sahih books are rejected by Shias. We have books like Al-Kafi and Bihar al-Anwar, but we don’t believe all of their hadith are reliable.