The Qur'an is the FINAL Word of God
This is really to answer my anonymous commenter who says I have done an inadequate job of explaining why I believe the Qur'an is the word of God. What can I say? When I first started reading the Qur'an last year and hearing verses read out by others, I was struck by its beauty. I am a Muslim because I believe in the oneness of God and that Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was his Final Messnger. And I believe that Allah (subbanna ho wa t'ala) wanted humankind to be aware of the final revelation so he transmitted it to the angel Jibril (alayhi sallam) who then revealed it over the course of 23 years to the heart of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
I believe it is the word of God and ultimately, that's what's most important. You are right when you say that I don't have an adequate grasp of my religion - I agree, it's going to take me years to grow into the role of a Muslim. But that's what being a Muslim is all about - learning about the religion and insh'allah, trying to show others the beauty of your religion.
I am most at peace - the inner peace that all humans clamor for, but few find - when I am at home, praying or reading from the Qur'an on my prayer rug. Or when I am sitting in the masjid on Fridays for 'jumuah' or the congregational prayer and hear the words of the Imam's 'qutbah' or sermon ring through my heart. I know that Allah (subbanna ho wa t'ala) was in the room on Friday, blessing our worshipping him. I could feel it.
Thoughts on education, politics, social justice, equality, pop culture and Islam through the heart, mind and soul of an American Muslim. I am a 32-year old male, Hindu convert to Islam, community college professor, doctoral student and past coordinator for Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence. Please email me at iwontjudgeyou@live.com
ss: that was not my question. you have once again dodged the questions. let me paste here what i have pasted elsewhere.
ReplyDelete1) you still haven't explained how you can call the bible the word of god, yet dismiss Jesus as a prophet.
2) you have also not explained how you know that the quran, as understood by you, is gods word.
if there can be a difference of opinion on what the right way to tell your family about your faith is, can there not be a difference of opinion on what the quran says ?
the inner peace you claim to feel is no different from what a believer of another religion would claim to feel. it is no less real to them. so dont let your emotions guide you. those very emotions seem to have guided quite a few jihadis to blow themselves up because they felt allah wasnt lying when he promised them 40 virgins. those very feelings also guided george w in sending troops to afghanistan and iraq and 'god' knows where else. those very feelings guided right wing hindu leaders in looking the other way when 'innocent' muslims were being massacred in gujrat.
(ironically, the quran says no one is innocent! the world media disagrees.)
now do you have answers to my questions or not ?
If the Quran is the final word from God, how does it reconcile with the other scriptures? If Jesus wasn't the messiah, what does the Quran have to say about the messiah?
ReplyDelete1) you still haven't explained how you can call the bible the word of god, yet dismiss Jesus as a prophet.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Injeel' (Arabic for Gospel) is the word of Allah. However, Islam's position is that the entire bible (old and new testament) has been altered and corrupted. We believe that Allah gave revelation to Jesus (as), but it does not exist in its original form today. We believe that Jesus (as) was a prophet of Allah, just like Moses (as), Abraham (as), Noah (as) Muhammad (saw), and others. The difference being that there is no other prophet to come after Muhammad (saw). We believe that all of the Prophets were chosen slaves of Allah, and invited people towards the same beliefs. We believe that the filth which has been narrated about the Prophets in the bible are lies against them.
2) you have also not explained how you know that the quran, as understood by you, is gods word.
First of all, the Quran is in its original form .. as it was revealed from the tongue of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). The bible and other revelations have, by the admittance of bible scholars, is not in its original form and there is no guarantee that it is exactly what Jesus (as) taught. Then, there is the character and truthfulness of the Prophet (saw). Also, the Prophet did not profit off of being the Messenger of Allah. Additionally, there are mass transmitted miracles that the Prophet (saw) performed by the permission of Allah. There are several miraculous aspects to the Quran, which several scientists have witnessed and subsequently accepted Islam. Also, the truth of the message of Islam appeals to the natural tendencies of mankind. The belief system is simple, and logical.
I know that the above is not a rigorous proof, but that's what I could put down in a few minutes.
faisal : thank you for answering on behalf of ss/shaam. i would have prefered if he had responded. his silence on these questions speaks volumes of his beliefs. its only adding fuel to my theory that ss/shaam is in this for the attention.
ReplyDeletei am quoting him (from the comments section of a previous entry)
"...I believe that Jesus was a prophet and I believe in his immaculate conception from Mary (Mariam). I believe the Bible is the Word of God, as well as the Psalms, Dead Sea Scrolls, Torah and Ten Commandments..."
He goes on to say he chose islam because it didn't have a caste system etc.
Anyway, its fairly obvious from his entry that he was talking about the Bible, Psalms etc as he knows it and understands it. i.e the Bible as printed today - be it the King James Version or the New International Version or whatever he used to read. So, your explanation of Islam/the Quranic view of the Bible, is not relevent here. Whether or not the 'original' version of the bible was corrupted by people doesn't matter.
ss believes the bible (the corrupted version that he has read) to be true. yet calls himself a muslim. thats blasphemy. someone claiming to believe the bible being the word of god must know that Jesus is the son of god who left behind a ghost so he could run away to his father. i think ss/shaam understands this story and claims to believe in it. he isn't get any virgins for sure.
ss/shaam : why aren't you addressing this issue ? what are you afraid of ?
faisal : to answer your second paragraph...
the quran is NOT in its original form. sure, perhaps in arabic it is. it has been translated to other languages and has been bastardised just as the bible has been. reading a translation is not the same as reading the original. meaning is lost. when this happens, you would be misunderstanding allah. and as you said elsewhere, if you disbelieve even a single verse of the quran youve denied allah. if you dont understand something entirely, surely you would have disagreed with something or the other.
character of truthfullness of the prophet ? do you realise, the test for truthfullness needs to be outside the quran. which neutral person can vouch for the truthfulness of the prophet. the book in question here is the quran. it cannot be both under scrutiny as well as provide evidence at the same time. the keyword here is NEUTRALITY. as a thief if he stole something.. chances are you are going to get NO for an answer. same thing here.
prophet didnt profit - you werent there. dont make sweeping statements!
miracles ? show me one and ill show you it isnt true. as for scientists witnessing and converting... all i can say is youre being silly to the point of stupidity. this is not unique to islam. scientists exist in all religions. islam is not special in any way.
there is also nothing natural about islam and no, it doesn't appeal to the natural tendencies of mankind. these are all bold sweeping statements you're making. you're taking your opinion as fact.
you've simply offered your opinion on why you think islam is gods word. you have not answered the basic question of how you KNOW that the QURAN as understood (and interpreted) by you is right ? the question remains unanswered.
ss/shaam.. break your silence, be a muslim and answer this question.
As for as your interpretation of Shaam's statement of that he believes in the Bible ... I'm sure he can clarify it for himself. I'm pretty sure that he meant the historical Psalms, Gospels, Scrolls, etc... For one cannot believe in the accuracy of the current bible and the Quran at the same time ... as the Bible contains many statements that are contradictory to Islamic theology.
ReplyDelete> the quran is NOT in its original
> form. sure, perhaps in arabic it
> is. it has been translated to
> other languages and has been
> bastardised just as the bible has
> been.
Actually, the Quran is in it's original form, in classical Arabic which is still a living language. All of the translations of the Quran are just that ... translations. It is not correct to call a translation of the Quran a 'Quran'. And no, it has not been altered like the Bible. The Bible does not exist in it's original form, nor do we know who the authors are, and the original language is dead.
> character of truthfullness of
> the prophet ? do you realise,
> the test for truthfullness
> needs to be outside the quran.
> which neutral person can vouch
> for the truthfulness of the
> prophet. the book in question
> here is the quran. it cannot
> be both under scrutiny as well
> as provide evidence at the same
> time. the keyword here is
> NEUTRALITY. as a thief if he
> stole something.. chances are you
> are going to get NO for an
> answer. same thing here.
History has documented the foes of Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his followers praising them to be truthful and just. There were Christians at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) who converted to Islam because they recognized the signs of the last and final Prophet to come. In fact, during Muhammad's (saw) childhood, a Christian monk said that he would be a Prophet. When Muhammad (saw) first received revelation, he was scared. His wife took him to her cousin who was a Christian scholar. According to his knowledge of the scripture and the signs in them, he said that Muhammad (saw) is the final messenger from God.
One of the greatest companions of the Prophet (saw), Salman al Farisy, was a Christian. He was under the tutelage of a Christian scholar/monk. On his deathbed, he told Salman of the coming of a Messenger from God, and the signs and characteristics of the Messenger as in the scripture and traditions. Salman then set out to find this Messenger, and he found him in Madina, just as his teacher had told him. I read a bit of the wiki article on him, and it looks accurate.
faisal : your take on shaams belief in the bible is convenient. the context of the discussion makes it abundantly clear what shaam meant. besides, how can shaam claim to believe a book (the 'original' bible) if he has never read it ? he can only talk about what he has read. he mentions the 'dead sea scrolls'. you rightly said that no one knows who the authors of the bible were. hence we have know way of knowing if the dead sea scrolls are infact the 'original' documents or copies of the 'original'. regardless, the scrolls were discovered as recently as the 1940's. surely the quran doesnt compel believers to believe in the unproven scrolls, considering the quran predates the scrolls by a couple of hundred years. its quite obvious from his statement of belief in the scrolls that he was referring to the corrupted version of the bible which he has read and not some non-existent version that you are referring to. ultimately, his silence on this issue speaks for itself.
ReplyDeletenow that you've shown him a way out, he may very well jump at it and parrot your views as it would be convenient to him. id be interested in knowing how he distances himself from his statement of believing in the dead sea scrolls. im amused!
"Actually, the Quran is in it's original form, in classical Arabic which is still a living language. All of the translations of the Quran are just that ... translations. It is not correct to call a translation of the Quran a 'Quran'."
so you agree with me that anyone who reads the quran in any language other than classical arabic, yet calls themselves a muslim, isn't one ? have you managed to read and understand classical arabic in a matter of 12 months ? or is it just your imams interpretation backed up by discussions with your buddies thats taught you everything know you about islam ?
in matters concerning absolute truths, history on ones character is insufficient for the simple reason that history is merely documented opinion. if my life depended on the quran (thank 'god' it doesn't) i would not bet on history being right about the prophets character. i dont wish to delve into the intricacies of the story of Salman, because quite frankly I dont know much about it beyond what you've said here and it doesnt really matter because no matter how perfect mohd. was it still doesnt solve the dilemma that people face on interpreting the quran. your previous explanation on 'mainstream' beliefs and 'boundaries for interpretation (from the comments section of a previous blog entry) is pasted below.
"There are accepted differences of opinion within Islam. The early Islamic community (the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (saw)) defined the boundaries for interpretation of the Quran. The Prophet (saw) ordered us to follow them. Furthermore, the Prophet (saw) told us to stick with the majority of Islamic scholarship .. the 'mainstream'. There is also a consensus of mainstream scholarship on the various methods of interpretation. Barring some (pretty vocal and sensational ... hence all the media coverage) splinter groups here and there, there has been a beautiful unity in Islamic thought throughout the ages."
my response is pasted below :
"...boundaries for intepretation of the Quran" - once again - rubbish. you cant say god sais this, but you are allowed to misunderstand about 10% of what it said. any more thant 10% and you only get 4 virgins, not 40. sounds ridiculous right ? everyone needs to have a fair shot at getting 40 virgins. why the discrimination ?
and who exactly are the 'mainstream' ? such terminology in the concept of absolute truths dont bring out any meaning. todays 'mainstream' views differ from those, say 20, 50 and a 100 years ago. 'mainstream' in saudi arabia is very different from 'mainstream' from india and 'mainstream' in europe or north america. so was allah only joking when he reveled itself to mohd ? the meaning of the quran (and hence understanding and practice of it) cannot change with time if it is the absolute, unadulterated word of god.
isn't it just your opinion that the splinter groups only represent the non-mainstream islamic view ? how do you know you are right ? so what is 'mainstream' really ? the view you choose to call mainstream ? i hope not.
faisal :
ReplyDelete"have you managed to read and understand classical arabic in a matter of 12 months ? or is it just your imams interpretation backed up by discussions with your buddies thats taught you everything know you about islam ?"
these were directed at ss/shaam. faisal, i imagine you do understand classical arabic. if not, please feel free to answer as well!
While my command over the Arabic language is not good enough to understand the Quran in a nuanced manner, I have read literature and learned from teachers who do have such a grasp of it. The vast majority of Islamic scholarship (i.e. mainstream) are in agreement over the scope of acceptable difference of opinion within the religion. Islam does not view difference of opinion as a problem, rather the Prophet (saw) himself said that it is a mercy unto his people. Traditional mainstream Islamic scholars have something called an 'Ijazah' (literally, 'permission') which is a type of credential. It consists of an unbroken chain of teachers who have certified that their student has a sufficient command over the material that they have been taught and that they can teach it to others as well. This unbroken chain of individuals (who's biographies are known and written down) reaches all the way to the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Many scholars can recite from memory the names of their teachers which extends without gap all the way to the Prophet Muhammad (saw).
ReplyDeleteRecently, it is unfortunate that people who have merely read books and have not learned from living scholars of this religion who have had rigorous training (as mentioned above) have popped up and claim to represent Islam. They have fallen prey to their emotions and desires. I do not know of a single scholar (who has proper training and permission to teach from an unbroken chain of teachers) who has said that targeting innocent civilians is permissible.
faisal : it appears from your comments that the interpretation and teaching of the quran rests on the shoulders of a small group of like minded individuals who are to disseminate their explanation/interpretation all over the world. don't kid yourself. it does not happen the way you're hoping it does. i dare say, a majority of imams do not interpret the quran as the set teachers you talk of, do. there ARE plenty of problems of interpretation and there will continue to be.
ReplyDeletenow, if the definition of a muslim needs to be changed to only include those who imbibed the quran from a specific group of teachers, then there wouldn't be as many muslims. a person is a muslim if he considers himself to be one. its a different issue whether or not he agrees with the 'majority'. who are you to say X knows his subject but Y doesnt ?
the shia-sunni rift is testimony to the problem of interpretation. and no, you cant wish away the problem by saying shia's are in the minority and hence are not mainstream. 10% of believers is a lot of believers. lets not get into specific issues... the list is endless and we can argue forever on this. add up all the 'fringe' groups and those with different opinions on islam and you will have a lot of 'minorities'. a majority among minorities is hardly mainstream.
bottom line is there are different interpretations to just about everything in the quran. all it takes is a slightly critical mind to accept this fact. you are blinded by your own beliefs to the point that you think your views are 'mainstream'. so is every other believer (muslim or otherwise).
perhaps you need to visit a few less developed countries like saudi arabia, pakistan, india, iran, bangladesh, iraq etc to see first hand how islamic interpretation(and hence practice) is vastly different from that in the developed world (usa, uk, europe). if you've witnessed both and say they're the same then we both know you are either lying or are far more blind than i imagine. i for one have muslim friends in both 'worlds' - developed and less developed (who not surprisingly, consider themselves 'mainstream' in their beliefs) yet are starkly different in their islamic beliefs. im not surprised by this difference. but you might be. but then again, you would also find ridiculous ways to reconcile the differences in interpretation and practice. truth is, going by your standard of believing EVERY WORD of the quran, hardly any muslims would go to the islamic heaven because there are differences among people who feel they represent the mainstream.
you might be interested to know that Indonesia has more muslims than anywhere else in the world. This is followed by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Indian subcontinent houses roughly 1/3 of all muslims. is the subcontinent mainstream in your view ?
It's been said before, but WHAT is up with this anonymous person?! Do you even know ss or are you just some random person who sits around and rants about other people's religious beliefs? Feel the love. I need to go pray now.
ReplyDeletesara : the fact that you call yourself sara makes you no less anonymous than i. i know ss as well as he knows me, so we're even.
ReplyDeleteHow do Muslims know that the Quran hasn't been corrupted over time, like they claim the Old and New testaments have been? Do you have the original document?
ReplyDeleteWhat are the teachings in the Old and New Testaments that are contrary to Islamic teaching?
The Quran was written down and memorized during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Scores of people had the Quran memorized by heart and it was subsequently transmitted in oral AND written form. Many of the companions of the Prophet (saw) devoted their lives to the purpose of memorizing and propagating the words of the Quran during the life of the Prophet (saw). Prophet Muhammad (saw) had an official scribe as well, who would write the revelation down, Zaid bin Thabit. Even nowadays, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who can recite the entire Quran from memory exactly. The early Muslims went to great lengths to preserve the Quran to such an extent that it can be said without a doubt that the Quran we have today is exactly what was revealed. Original manuscripts of the Quran exist today which were written down and compiled by the close companions of the Prophet thru mass chains of transmission for each verse.
ReplyDelete> perhaps you need to visit a few
ReplyDelete> less developed countries like
> saudi arabia, pakistan, india,
> iran, bangladesh, iraq etc to see
> first hand how islamic
> interpretation(and hence practice)
> is vastly different from that in
> the developed world (usa, uk,
> europe).
By the grace of Allah, there is tremendous unity in beliefs within the Islamic nation. Islamic scholars from all of the countries you have mentioned above are respected by the scholarly community worldwide. An American Muslim is no different from a Bangladeshi Muslim. They have the same beliefs, and the majority of practices are the same as well. As it was mentioned previously, there is a range of accepted difference of opinion within Islam, and Muslims can differ on some things. The practices which you may notice being different is that some women may cover their face, and some don't. Or some men have longer beards than others, etc ... These are 'minor' issues. Every Muslim will say that you have to pray .. the differences you will notice is that some will pray by raising their hands to their head once, others doing it more than once ... or some reciting certain portions out loud, etc ... These are acceptable differences and the scholars who represent either viewpoint acknowledge the validity of the others as well. And yes, I have met with Muslims from all over the Muslim world, and the Hajj is a beautiful place to meet them and witness our overwhelming unity in beliefs and practice.
Your ignorance regarding the intellectual harmony within the Islamic tradition is evident.
you are more amusing than ss. if disbelieving a 'single verse' of the quran amounts to being a non-believer, how can you now say 'acceptable differences' exist ?
ReplyDeletein matters of asolute truth, there is no room for such differences. there can only be one way to point your hands and only one way to grow your beard and certainly only one way a womans 'modesty' is enforced. it is your opinion (and nothing more), that 'accepted differences' on these issues are minor. thats where the problem lies. look at the bigger picture - these differences demonstrate disagreement between the 'scholars'.
ill make this discussion simple for you. demonstrate how the contradictions between shais and sunnis represent intellectual harmony.
there is a 100-150 year gap between mohd dying and the earliest written down version the world possesses today. so the original version of the quran does not exist. unless ofcourse the original version was written down 100-150 years after mohd died. in which case muslims face the same problems as christians do regarding authenticity of the current version.
ReplyDeletethe issue of the originality of the quran has been dealt with adequately. so i hope we dont need to go into it here all over again.
visit this link instead : http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurmanu.htm
There is a written version done by a companion of the Prophet (saw), Uthman (ra). It is located in Turkey. Regardless, the Quran has been mass transmitted orally from memory ... and this tradition continues to this day ... The Huffaz, or people who have memorized the entire Quran, have an unbroken chain of teachers who extend all the way to the Prophet (saw) .. all of whom who had memorized the Quran and authorized the next person as one who had memorized it correctly.
ReplyDeletethe authenticity of the 'Topkapi Manuscript' you are referring to has been adequately refuted and shown to be a later creation and not an 'original' as you claim. deceit is a sin. pray for forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteas regards the oral tradition - with no 'original' version to compare with, the only thing that can be said is that the version being recited today is on par with the written one that dates no earlier than 100 years after the prophet died.
islam is all about outward appearances. deep divisions exist between sects/groups. the shia-sunni divide demonstrates this.
a less sensitive issue where opinion is divided is on the starting date of ramadan. each year the same arguments of 'have you seen the moon' and 'it doesnt matter, someone else saw the moon in saudi' take place.
so quit kidding yourself that there is intellectual harmony within islam. there isn't.
So there's no possible way that some scholar remembered their memorized Quran incorrectly? The human memory has got to be the most subjective medium to store information on. Yet you claim that the Quran is the uncorrupted word of God and that the other scriptures (old and new testaments) have been corrupted over time. How can you know this? Where is the evidence of this corruption in the old and new testaments?
ReplyDeleteAnd again, what are the teachings in the Old and New Testaments that are contrary to Islamic teaching?
matthew: you got that spot on. human memory is total rubbish. hence in the absence of the undisputed original source to compare with, no amount of memorizing will do.
ReplyDeletememory or otherwise, there is another fundamental problem with accepting a hypothetical 'original' quran. the problem is to do with whats called 'diacritical points'.. think of them as punctuation marks for pronunciation. these 'diacritical points' were added several years after the quran was 'originally' written down (without the punctuation). they were added to give clarity to the 'intended' meaning of various words (perhaps a sign of trouble with interpretation s, right from the start ?!). the problem is that a couple of dots here and there radically alter the meaning of the words.
now how on earth could the average joe scholar know what mohd meant and put the dots in the right place ?
the overzealous muslims here would argue that there is an unbroken chain of scholars leading back to the prophet himself and they knew what he meant.. they were the mainstream and hence all agreed on the meaning, as a result of which the qurans 'purity' remains. thats a tall claim and a weak argument backed up with virtually no verifiable evidence. moreover its a claim that a muslim is unlikely to accept in the context of any other religion. (after all many other religions do claim to have an oral tradition)
as for evidence of corruption of the old and new testaments. its self evident. no one claims the bible (protestant) fell from the sky. it was 'compiled' by a group of about 50 scholars/priests at the height of the protestant reformation. only those 50 odd people know what compromises they had to make in order to allow certain books in and leave certain others out of the bible. roman catholics have what protestants call the 'apocrypha' (books of questionable origin) which the protestant bible doesn't have. this is sufficient evidence that there is no 'divine' bible as 'god' intended. instead there is a book that represents the compromises made by sinful men.
the king james version (kjv) is often used as the basis for translating into other languages. i would dare day, the kjv forms the basis of most protestant bibles today. however the source documents that the kjv uses arent the only sources. there are bibles such as the new american standard bible that take into account more/different sources.
moreover, no one claims that the original biblical documents exist. there are however over 5000 manuscripts none of which agree with each other. hence, bible compiling has always been a matter of making choices.
to answer you question about evidence of corruption.. unless you're asking for video footage of the culprits, the above should suffice.
Sorry Anonymous, I was driving up and down to Chicago and am now sick as heck ... and seriously in danger of not being able to fly to India on Friday. I apologize if my silence has bothered you and not allowed me to respond in person. Inshallah, I will try and respond to you specifically in the next two days.
ReplyDeletess: apologies not required. faisal/the anonymous impersonator have done a lot of answering on your behaf.
ReplyDeletess - you stopping in heathrow on your way to india? let me know.
ReplyDeletePeople interested in the development of the Quran might find this article in wikipedia of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur%27an
ReplyDeleteInteresting information here:
The many variant readings caused Muslim soldiers from Iraq who followed Ibn Masud's collection, and soldiers of Syria who took Ubay's collection to be the correct one, to accuse each other of lying.
During the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan, there were disputes about the recitation of the Qur'an. In response, Uthman decided to codify, standardize, and write down the text.
Sounds like a similar situation to the Council of Laodicea where the Bible was compiled.
The Quran says that the bible is the word of God, does it not? If that is the case then the corruption of the bible must have occurred at some point after the life of Muhammed. (Otherwise why would Muhammed say it was the word of God?) However, there is no evidence of this and there exist thousands of manuscripts for the books of the bible that date back to the first century and OT manuscripts that predate Christ by centuries. These documents verify the integrity of the bible from before the time of Muhammed until now.
matthew : the wikipedia article doesn't represent the 'mainstream' view. just as the taleban and the al-qaeda dont represent the mainstream view. ;)
ReplyDeletebesides, there is an unbroken list of scholars going back to moses.. sorry, i meant mohammed, who (although mostly dead), can vouch for the truthfulness of the quran.
as for the integrity of the bible... its been tinkered with so often, its difficult for anyone to accept as the word of god since gods words are going to be 'revised and updated' based on new evidence. its a work in progress that will never be completed. so where is the integrity ?
how would you reconcile the differences between the roman catholic bible and the protestant bible ? the protestant bible came into existence AFTER mohammed. so corruption has taken place with respect to the bible that was considered gods word, by mohammed.
im not suggesting the quran is right... only that the bible is atleast as unreliable as the quran.
The Roman Catholic Bible simply has a few more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible. The vast majority of the books are found in both versions and do not differ in teaching. During the protestant reformation the OT books that were not part of the Jewish Canon (the scripture accepted by Jews) were dropped. No new books were added to the Protestant Bible. The foundational tenets of the Catholic faith do not rest on these books that were removed, mostly they were books of history (i.e. Maccabees). Believing them to be God breathed or not doesn't make you a better or worse Christian.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was making was that Muslims have a problem. The Quran says the bible is the word of God. The Quran, however, teaches things that are contrary to the Bible. Things like "God has no Son." So the Muslim is stuck. If the bible is the word of God, as the Quran says, then why do they contradict? Either the Quran is not the word of God, or the Bible must have been altered. They say the Bible has been altered because they are biased in favor of Islam. However there is no evidence to back up this claim of alteration and lots of evidence refuting it.
matthew : from your comments on the apocrypha, i take it you are a protestant. the council of trent acknowledged and reiterated the importance of the apocyphal books - declaring them as canons. these very books formed part of the septuagint which church fathers had for years relied upon. hence their absence from the jewish canons is insufficient reason for removing them. regardless, they continue to form part of the rc bible - some say theyre canonical some not-so canonical, others apocryphal. to those who say its canonical, its fundamental to their faith (even if only in some small way). disbelieving the apocrypha *would* therefore make you a bad christian.
ReplyDeleteregarding the qurans take on the bible... (nice observation btw. i would like to see a muslim truthfully answer it).
as someone who believes in god (and hence miracles)... is it not possible that mohd knew what was in the 'original' bible, as revealed to jesus (the prophet), and was referring to *that* version and not the 'corrupted' version that was floating around during his lifetime ? i mean, it sounds like a really stupid explanation... but its still possible right ?
perhaps 'god' revealed itself to jesus in the original version.. told jesus that he was just a prophet and to spread the good word about god and the future prophets or whatever. then jesus spread the word. some overzealous followers elevated him to the status of 'god' and started spreading rumours that jesus was the son of god and he died and went to heaven leaving behind his ghost. 70 years later people started writing down false stories of jesus... NT manuscripts were thus created.
in the prequel to this story, something equally unreal happened, whereby the 'original' OT manuscripts were destroyed and replaced by the lies we call the Old Testament.
5-600 years later allah reveals to mohd that the 'bible' is gods word... referring to the original.
the whole thing is plausible.. just as its plausible the bible is gods word even after the quran came out.
no two versions of the bible are the same. what further evidence do you require to accept that the bible has been altered ?
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to believe that religion is in direct opposition to civilization. I mean, that's what the story of Adam and Eve is really about.
ReplyDeleteYou guys do not know what you are talking about regarding the Quran's view on the bible. The Quran mentioned that Allah revealed books thru his messengers. In fact, it is an article of faith to believe in ALL of the books that Allah revealed. Does that mean that Muslims believe that the current versions of the scriptures (or the ones that were during the Muhammad's time) were unadultered? NO! The Quran was merely mentioning that Allah revealed those books ... it was referring to the true historic psalms, torah, bible, and scrolls. This is a basic article of faith in Islam, and every muslim knows this.
ReplyDeleteThe Prophet Muhammad and his companions have documented statements that the scriptures had been distorted. The Quran also talks about the evil people who distorted scriptures. The Quran's and Islam's stance on previous scriptures is crystal clear.
> The point I was making was that
> Muslims have a problem. The Quran
> says the bible is the word of
> God.
The Quran says that Allah revealed the injeel (gospels) to the Prophet Jesus (as), and criticizes Christians for altering the tenants of faith that Prophet Jesus (as) taught them. It DOES NOT say that the copies of the bible present during the time of Muhammad (saw) and afterwards are reliable. The Quran and Prophet Muhammad (saw) affirm the *historic fact* that Allah revealed the gospels to his Prophet Jesus, and this is an integral part of our faith.
This is a ridiculous play on words by christian missionaries, to somehow say that the Quran validated the copies of the bible which were in circulation during the time of Muhammad (saw). There is an article which talks about this issue ... which there was no need of until someone came up with this nonsensical argument .
http://www.towardsislam.com/dan_1988/2006/04/what-does-islam-say-about-bible.html
And about the 'differences' between so called 'versions' of the Quran. These people have mistaken the different 'recitations' of the Quran to be different versions. The Quran was revealed in several dialects (slightly different ways of pronunciation) as taught by the Prophet (saw). There are masters of recitation today who can recite in all of the different dialects. They all convey the same message and meaning.
The issue of the seven readings of the Quran has been dealt with in depth. One such article is here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html
faisal : the article on the 7 readings of the quran attempts at confusing the issue.
ReplyDeletethere is a fundamental problem with the explanation offered by the article.
it starts out saying:
"Arabic orthography at the time of cUthmân was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked."
this implies, diacritical marks were not necessary as there was a universally accepted approach to understanding words with variant readings.
next, it states that the quran relied on oral transmission:
" In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur'an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography."
this at the very least implies that the script began to change and allowed for variant readings, that were previously impossible. the words "to ensure correct reading of the written texts..." clarify this point. this is in direct contrast to the previous point of not needing vowel marks because of the universality brought about by the morphological patterns of arabic words.
in other words, there was an oral tradition which started to go wrong (after the death of Uthman). to correct this, the 'secondary' method of writing it down was adopted.
what happened between Uthman dying and the quran being written down with the CORRECT diacritical points ? your explanation is unreasonable.. no reasonable person will rely on an oral tradition to reliably transmit a lengthy document.
"So, we have the authority directly from the Prophet(P) that the Qur'an can be recited in any of the Qirâ'a. Indeed the presence of masâhif of the Qur'an in different Qirâ'ât as well as the professional Muslim reciters (and common folk too!) reciting the Qur'an in various Qirâ'ât indicates their importance. There are people even in this day and age who recite in more than one Qirâ'a and some of them upto ten. "
as for the prophet recognising and accepting 7 readings... its insufficient as no one knows which 7 readings he was referring to as there are anywhere from 10-20 ways to recite the quran..
owing to the reliance on the oral tradition until AFTER the death of Uthman, its entirely possible that the 7 Uthman variants were tampered with before being written down with different dots.
we are now left with the dilemma of having to interpret what the prophet said... its a dilemma much like the one relating to what the prophet said about the 'injeel'. christians say the quran bears witness to the bible (as it stands today), you on the other hand say the prophet referred to the 'original' version and not the current version or the one during his lifetime.
similarly, the prophet authorised the 7 readings of Uthman while he
was alive.. after his death, and the death of Uthman, all you were left with was the oral tradition, which everyone agrees is not infallible. (would you accept a theory of an infallible oral tradition in christianity or hinduism ?)
bottom line - there exist 7 questionable readings of the quran which muslims conveniently say the prophet authorised, without revealing that they rely on a fallible oral tradition that carried on well after the prophets and uthmans life.
summing up this discussion - my first question was:
ReplyDelete"you still haven't explained how you can call the bible the word of god, yet dismiss Jesus as a prophet."
you attempted to sidestep the issue by claiming muslims referred to the "original" version of the bible which was later corrupted by the jews and christians. however ss/shaams statement of belief in the dead sea scrolls (discovered circa 1947) clearly showed where he as a 'muslim' stood on the issue of belief in the bible. while ss/shaam may not represent islam as a whole, it demonstrates my next point.. that stark differences in interpretations/opinions exist in islam.
my seconds question was:
"you have also not explained how you know that the quran, as understood by you, is gods word."
you dragged the argument all over the place without adequately answering the question.
your explanations relied on 2 theories :
1) that there exists an 'oral' tradition that relies on an unbroken chain of scholars leading back to the prophet
2) that there is a 'mainstream' view that relies on an unbroken chain of scholars leading back to the prophet
both tall claims which you wont accept in the context of another religion (after all, several religions imbibe information from the previous generation).
in the end, none of your explanations reconcile the fundamental differences of opinion between islamic sects and muslims in general. some jihadi out there is getting prepared to strap on a few bombs and kill a lot of people in the sincere belief that he will be granted 40 virgins. your imams are responsible for that.
This blog entry is the FINAL word of Shyam.
ReplyDeletenoel : Shyam has maintained his silence through most of this discussion. i suspect a storm is brewing in his head. he is likely to respond... i am eagerly awaiting his response.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps this run of comments has become so bloody boring that it is nearly painful to read.
ReplyDeleteYou can't expect him to know all about the religion from day one of conversion. It takes a lifetime. Anyhow, why are we nitpicking Islam apart when we still have bigger questions to ask him?
Such as, if one has had hallucinations, compulsive urges, which are controllable by a religious practice with high organization, do you think psychotherapy would help discover the root?
The challenge for us, the readers, would be to ask him these questions without coming across as an assalt on his personality, religion, choices, etc. I know it is easier to peck apart the bigger target of Islam.
-CZ
CZ: shaam made some pretty stupid generalizations about other religions (christianity and hinduism to be precise)... he went to the extent of attempting to rationalise his choice of religion based on its lack of caste system, it being monotheistic.. etc. people in glass houses should not throw stones. perhaps this discussion will be an eye opener to the fact that islam is founded on no less shaky ground than other religions.
ReplyDeletenow to answer your 'bigger' questions - its called brainwashing. parents do it to children all the time. religion is just that. so save us your scientific inquisition and stick with the real issues i.e islam is a religion of hate. how can you change this ?
Does SS being "brainwashed" not bother you?
ReplyDelete(Sorry, that was my "scientific inquisition" again, wasn't it?)
Why is your focus on Islam? Why not ask how did get allow himself to get "brainwashed" (by self or others), if this is what I understand you to feel?
It is clear that 1) we both agree that some things in the equation will not change and that 2) we both care for SS, or we wouldn't spend so much time on this blog.
-CZ
CZ: i enjoy debating religion. ss' blog entertains me.
ReplyDeleteislam is a barbaric religion that has no place in modern civil society. the absence of 'democracy' and 'secularism' in muslim-majority nations (barring a few) demonstrates this.
muslims cannot coexist with non-muslims. yet ss has the audacity to complain about other religions and take the moral high ground. that to me is blasphemy!
as i said in a previous entry.. brainwashing is not very hard, parents do it to children all the time. but if you MUST know... my view is that religion in general and islam in particular talk about absolute truths and values - things that just dont exist in the real world. this is very appealing to some people and makes up for their insecurities. this is perhaps how ss got sucked into this.
its just a crutch. now i dont have a problem so long as its just a crutch. but when people start interpreting things in the most perverse manner in order to justify their actions, the world has serious problems. this entire discussion will not have any impact on anyone here. but it certainly kept me and everyone else who participated, entertained.
this blog offers ss and outlet and the comment section offers me a chance to entertain myself. thats really the point of it, anyway.
that and shaam's family has no other way to tell him he's being an idiot other than an anonymous blog...
ReplyDeleteif absolute truths do not exist, then the absolute truth that absolute truths do not exist, does not exist.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, your philosophy is self refuting.
Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.
ReplyDeleteTawk amongst yaselves.
mathew : nice point.. youre sharp. but ill say it again... 'my view is that religion in general and islam in particular talk about absolute truths and values - things that just dont exist in the real world.'
ReplyDeletei dont say absolute truths of any kind dont exist.. just the religious... more specifically the islamic kind, dont exist. that btw, was an opinion, based on reason and not an 'absolute truth' (unlike the bible which claims the world was created in seven days)
Shyam - are you happy? Which is / was the happiest phase of your life?
ReplyDeleteAnon.
probably the moment he discovered the beauty of islam and the power of allah.
ReplyDelete