Can you PROVE that God's previous scriptures have been corrupted?
-
Peace Stitch and others.
I agree with you regarding what you have said. I consider it as a test from the point of pragmatism. It may be a nice argument for one who wants to remain satisfied with it. I myself too is obliged with such argument and unable to prove clearly to others from historical point. If I fail to provide any acceptable historical account sufficiently proving the trustworthiness of Muhammad and the authenticity in collecting the verves, it may seem, specially to the opponents of the Quran, as a desperate attempt to adhere to the Quran, which is similar to an attempt of a drowning man to survive with getting hold of a straw.
The pragmatic approach shall not work for one who demands for a test from the historical points. The structural quality or the message quality of the Quran alone shall not work too. The Imams of the Quran Alone movement should have an answer to the problem. A very logical, unbiased and cautious person will ask for the following questions/accounts when he comes to know about the Quran.
- Who received these revelations?
- Was he a trustworthy person?
- Give me an account of the process of the preservation of the Quran.
- Give me an account of how it has been relayed to the present time from the time of the recipient of the revelations.
If we believe that the Quran is from God, it shall be a responsibility for us to convey the message from God to the people. The wise people shall certainly ask for the above mentioned things when they are addressed. What should be our answer? Should it be one of the following?
A. Sorry brother, your demands have no intrinsic merit at all.
B. Sorry brother, our predecessors unfortunately were all irresponsible. They made all attempts to corrupt the message of the Quran. For that purpose, they piled all unreliable and concocted stories in the name of history.Peace.
-
Peace Prashant,
You said If I fail to provide any acceptable historical account sufficiently proving the trustworthiness of Muhammad and the authenticity in collecting the verves, it may seem, specially to the opponents of the Quran, as a desperate attempt to adhere to the Quran, which is similar to an attempt of a drowning man to survive with getting hold of a straw.
You said "it may seem, specially to the opponents of the Quran, as a desperate attempt to adhere to the Quran" if this is not what you think, then I have no problem. But if you think that not having proved technically, you are in like of that "drowning man to survive with getting hold of a straw" then you are terribly mistaken. If not all then much of the religions I have learnt don't even care to discuss the issue of protection for example, Jews and Hindus and still we see them talking so much about God on the basis of their unprotected scriptures. They are all the more positive about their scriptures and loose no time explaining what wise things they have learnt out of it. It may sound self-deceiving for a theorist, but then God and his definitions are not but a positive theory; something which if on one side had for centuries given man an healthy cultural and spiritual enrichment then on the other had lead to wars and internal anarchy. Be that your self-innovated ideas, nothing will go wrong, unless you strongly believe that you are human and not God and seek nothing but Justice; imbalance is a part of ones life but not the whole and it is all for Good that you learn and see the best. I said it before to a friend and I say it again, we live in a present of visual data capturing and still you see that all these photos and cameras if are presented as proof there are many who refute it comfortably. When such is the case of the present, what would one have to strongly prove of our so-called historical data? He does all this and tries hard and still has no technical reason that Quran is from God. Some resort to Mathematics without understanding the basic philosophical disputes within it and the rest to Science without understanding Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and its wide disputes. Last but not the least, forget not to go through the differences which the so-called doctors of Ahadith apply while authenticating a narration or a continuous tradition. If all of what I have said is taken in the right sense and after right examination, then I believe things should sound better. If not, then we both atleast for now have all the rights to believe that we both pity each other for being a "drowning man to survive with getting hold of a straw".
You said A very logical, unbiased and cautious person will ask for the following questions/accounts when he comes to know about the Quran "Who received these revelations?"
There are so many books that had inspired me and still I know not who the author is. I apply their given remedy and can see the results they promised but I still know not who the person is. If alone the book is clear and explains things pretty clearly, then questioning the name of author is purely a technical issue of record keeping or any extended application of technical development. Possibly at some places, a better understanding of author's background would help us understand some intricate aspects of the book. But, this is not necessarily an essential component that might effect one's connection with the book.
You said Was he a trustworthy person?
Howsoever good you be, you have enemies and friends. Imagine a fresh American who knew nothing about Muhammad starts reading his biography. If he sees pro's in the writings of Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, Shibli Nomani, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Masoodul Hasan, etc then what does he learn from Arberry, Margolioth, William Muir. How long do you think he will continue reading the rebuttals of the former team while the latter regenerates them? And let?s say, months after reading the rebuttals, if he did reach a conclusion, then is it what one defines strongly as "Crystal clear Fact". So, either say fact doesn't exist, or agree that it is a belief or an opinion, whichever you chose it?s just the way you take it that matters. This in words and letter is all I have gone through in my 9 years of learning curve while trying to explore Islam. I still am with it to be proud of what I understand and define myself as a Muslim.
You said Give me an account of the process of the preservation of the Quran. Give me an account of how it has been relayed to the present time from the time of the recipient of the revelations.
Good question. So much is being said within Sunnis and shias. Tamanna Emadi in his "Ijazul Quran and Ikhtilaaf Qiraat" has a different way of presenting things and probably Moiz Amjad shares something similar with him atleast in the part of describing the process in which Quran was preserved. However, I still doubt if all this can still give us a confirmatory result on the protective nature of Quran. If this doesn't, then all the other scriptures are almost gone for a toss. Probably, because we are expecting too much of them. There is so much one can talk about Tawatur qualities too but this probably isn't the right time.
You said If we believe that the Quran is from God, it shall be a responsibility for us to convey the message from God to the people.
Whether I have to do it or not is one question and so is the point that those in the past did it or not, but even if I and the others have failed to do then still it doesn't mean that God would keep the new comers ignorant of his duties; after all, it is us he should punish not them, right? So, keep in mind, we may be the secondary tools to inform the truth not the primary.
Your option Sorry brother, your demands have no intrinsic merit at all.
If I have to rephrase it, " My friend, you are expecting too much out of this prevailing religious scriptures. Best of luck."
You said Sorry brother, our predecessors unfortunately were all irresponsible. They made all attempts to corrupt the message of the Quran. For that purpose, they piled all unreliable and concocted stories in the name of history.
If you can stop questioning me for their actions, then I don't think why I should blame them. If questioning me is the requirement of the present subject, then I have no other options. After all, why should I be ashamed, if they did say things insensible and I am pushed to believe them just because they believed it. Remember all this is not said without proofs all the time, if the imams of the free-minds do not have a good pamphlet that doesn't mean none have it. Then again, you are in the tougher side of proving things 100% and all I need is 10% doubt to disprove you and the job is done. If these words symbolize my dishonesty, then forgive me such is not the case, neither do I entertain such intentions nor do I observe such a line of action. Its just that I wish to live a sensible and peaceful life, if your predecessors can give me that, then I am all the more faithful, if not, then I don't know why I should be ashamed to believe that there used be human predecessors who had an evil mind. Do you think it?s hard to believe?
Regards,
Pondering Mind. -
Peace,
Ponderingmind, you used in your comment on using science, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with comparing verses to scientifical facts. Heisenberg's principle is about measurements and only refers to the quanta-level. The facts mentioned in the Quran describe major happenings as the Big-bang, forming of stars, Iron not part of earth's normal structure, evolution, barriere between different bodies of waters and so on. So Heisenberg's principle has nothing to do with the large observations that coincide with Quranic verses. His principle can only be used on molecular level which the Quran doesn't discuss in those terms so the principle could have been applied. Also a mathematical pattern cannot have any philosophical disputes as these are objective observations that stand on their own. These observations lead to three conclusions, or the people who wrote it had the means of calculating such patterns and keep a consistency in the text, or we bring in aliens, or we bring in God. When using occam's razor, only the God comes out as the best option when looking at the Quran's message. So these fall again under scientific judgement. Only the Quran's message itself can be discussion of philosophical meanings.
Peace
-
Peace Arnold,
You said Heisenberg's principle is about measurements and only refers to the quanta-level. You further said "So Heisenberg's principle has nothing to do with the large observations that coincide with Quranic verses"
Quanta?s being a bundle of Energy isn?t just limited to photons. It was us who have limited Energy in different categories for not having identified the similarities between the measurements such as frequency, intensity, etc. If this wasn't the case, then one shouldn?t be surprised when we correlate energy working within the mitochondria with the quanta of a Photon. We have presented the energy in different terms it isn?t necessarily that it exists that way and just as Neil Bohr's observation it is we who have the inherent defect of precipitating the terms that correlate to one aspect be that Energy or Power and not that they exist that way. If this be true, then the principle of Uncertainty is just not limited to Photons but to every living cell and the energy involved within it just that the uncertainty and its element as we have distinguished is different but not disconnected. Whether Quran talks about it or not, but science has lost its way differentiating between the two.
You said His principle can only be used on molecular level which the Quran doesn?t discuss in those terms so the principle should be applied.
Whether Quran discusses it or not is one issue, whether science has successfully tackled the molecular presentation of living cell is another. After all, you use the former to prove the latter to be the word of God. So, it would be important you first check if your tool is efficient and if its observations are reliable, if yes then what is the limit? Forget not the warning of Neil Bohr that the more you try touching the topic of molecular harmony and the way they exist as a structural source of energy the more you are bound to be confused and lost. To reiterate, it is Science that is lost for not having successfully correlated the terms that prop out of Energy be that of a living cell or a technical non-living thing. Thus, using an ineffective tool to prove a thing to be a word of God doesn?t make any sense to me. For more information, go through the correspondences between Neil Bohr and Einstein on this topic.
You said Also a mathematical pattern cannot have any philosophical disputes as these are objective observations that stand on their own.
Be that objective or subjective, the basics should be strong. So check if the basics are still strong, for your reference, let me refer you to the book "From Certainty to Uncertainty" written by "F. David Peat".
You said The facts mentioned in the Quran describe major happenings as the Big-bang, forming of stars, Iron not part of earth's normal structure, evolution, barriere between different bodies of waters and so on.
I doubt. Most of these verses can be interpreted in another way. In case, you blame me that I already have made my point to interpret it another way then so be the case with you. Probably, in case we get a time to discuss these verses individually I would be in a better position to explain them one by one.
You said These observations lead to three conclusions, or the people who wrote it had the means of calculating such patterns and keep a consistency in the text, or we bring in aliens, or we bring in God.
You missed one more. There had been a debate on how human mind works in psychological terms. Amidst many opinions, there are times we decide our action or decision first and justify it later. So, the last probability you missed was, "an interpreter pushed it inside Quran". This isn't the first time things have happened this way, right from the time of Mutazilah - a rationalist team as per the so-called Islamic historical data - Quran was pushed to prove much of what an interpreter wishes the best example would be the justification of Greek philosophy through Quran. But, then this is the case with everything isn't it? Be that of the one who proposes or the one who rejects. I agree it?s just that you don't need to be hard on the one who rejects or the one who proposes. That's exactly what I am trying to do now or did before.
Regards,
Pondering Mind. -
Peace,
This has to do with the observations on a molecule level, not on the macro level. This has nothing to do with macro-observations. Events as the Big-bang are macro-level observations and not micro-observations, so the uncertainty principle would not apply then. You are confussing 2 different things completly. The principle has to do with the micro-level observations on position and measurement of a molecule, not on the higher macro-level observations.
As for the verses cannot refer to scientifical observations, for one, i believe verses can have multiple meanings, so that some can have metaphorical meanings next to literal meanings. But the literal meanings are to clearcut precise. But that is a conversations in the Quranic divinity thread. I made a list there of articles on science. Write your opinion on verses there.Peace
-
You said Events as the Big-bang are macro-level observations and not micro-observations. The principle has to do with the micro-level observations on position and measurement of a molecule, not on the higher macro-level observations.
Absolutely Baseless! Talking about Big-Bang as per some data analysts, it was the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre who was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposition was based on relativity; a factor that is directly or inversely proportional to dimension, speed and direction. The whole equation involves the energy transfer that has been measured not but through radiation?s wherein the chances of uncertainty creeps in. Even Edwin Hubble?s fundamental speed-distance relationship was nothing but a far-assumptive radiation based analysis.
As per Neurological Encyclopedia, the term Radiation includes a variety of different physical phenomena. However, in essence, all these phenomena can be divided into two classes phenomena connected with nuclear radioactive processes are one class, the so-called radioactive radiation (RR); electromagnetic radiation (EMR) may be considered as the second class. Now, tell me which of this is not Micro!
These where the reasons why NASA's sister supportive organization believes
"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." (Updated at msfc.nasa.gov sister supportive organization on December 2, 1997)
Almost all the basic manipulative formulae applied within had to go with what they measured as radiation from a distant source and had elements that pushed it back to Uncertainity something specifically which Neil Bohr warned and Einstein feared.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Pondering Mind. -
Peace,
Yes that is true. But there have been some answers given tot his by Penrose and Feynman who show that it can be measured and calculated to a certain degree. I will re-check their work. And then i can give an answer.
-
Salaam all,
I have heard for many years that God's previous scriptures were corrupted, thus the requirement of the Quran which is considered the final and perfect book of God.
However, can anyone PROVE without a doubt that these previous scriptures are indeed corrupt? The Quran refers to the Law of Moses, the Psalms of David, and the Gospel of Jesus but as far as I am aware the whole idea of these previous scriptures as being corrupt are NOT from the Quran. It appears it has been an accepted idea which has spread by tongue.
The Quran mentions this in regards to the previous scriptures ?
Quran 33 (Yusuf Ali translation)
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).Quran 4163 (Yusuf Ali translation)
We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.Quran 262 (Yusuf Ali translation)
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.I don?t know much about the previous scriptures (although I am about to purchase them for study), but if God is mentioning these scriptures in the Quran, then surely God would warn us of their ?corruption? if it were true.
There is a small following of Jews called the Karaite, they uphold the Old Testament alone and reject the Talmud (which I understand to be the equivalent of the hadith attributed to Moses). Do you think that perhaps that the Karaites are exactly the same as us in the spiritual sense?
Does anyone else understand that Chapter 2, Verse 62 of the Quran confirms the authenticity of God's previous scriptures?
Over to you, I am sure this topic will spark much debate.
Peace,
Stitch
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Qur'an confirms the other Scriptures, yes, but Qur'an also tells us that they added stuff into the Bible, like trinity, so when you run into trinity in the Bible, you'll understand what they added.
Infact, you know what?
If a person compared the two Books - Qur'an and Bible - you can delete from the Bible all that doesn't agree with the Qur'an and you would have the Bible that was revealed in the beginning.Of course, Christians would reject such a Bible ....
As salamu alaykum.
-
Peace,
Alen, it is not that easy. The history as told in the Quran is not to be found in the Bible except only with a few verses. The Bible is like the hadith story telling every single detail. The Quran gives only what we need to know. And The Quran also corrects the Bible on most stories. There would be nothing left.
-
Peace,
Alen, it is not that easy. The history as told in the Quran is not to be found in the Bible except only with a few verses. The Bible is like the hadith story telling every single detail. The Quran gives only what we need to know. And The Quran also corrects the Bible on most stories. There would be nothing left.
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.I understand you fully.
So what?
It's better to remove ALL the added stuff eve if in the end we are left with one verse in the Bible, at least it's the right one.I'd do it.
As salamu alaykum.
-
Peace,
Alen, it is not that easy. The history as told in the Quran is not to be found in the Bible except only with a few verses. The Bible is like the hadith story telling every single detail. The Quran gives only what we need to know. And The Quran also corrects the Bible on most stories. There would be nothing left.
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.I understand you fully.
So what?
It's better to remove ALL the added stuff eve if in the end we are left with one verse in the Bible, at least it's the right one.I'd do it.
As salamu alaykum.
Exactly bro, in fact the verses in the Bible that been qualified by the Quran should be believd in exactly as the belief in the Quran
Salam
-
Peace,
Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from it's original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I think experts in Quranic Arabic would answer this question best.
Nural
-
Qur'an confirms the other Scriptures, yes, but Qur'an also tells us that they added stuff into the Bible, like trinity, so when you run into trinity in the Bible, you'll understand what they added....
does the Quran say that they added stuff to the injeel ? can u quote any verse please ?
salam.
-
-
Peace,
Nural Amin said Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from its original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I would probably resort to what Shabbir Ahmed and Tamanna Emadi have to say on this topic. The latter of the two is an open-minded historian who considered his self to be a Quran Aloner. As per these authors, there was one common enemy that took over the political strata of the Quranic society diverting it back to the roads of mythology. Tamanna Emadi in his book "Ijazul Quran wa Ikhilaaf Qiraat" did a wonderful job of categorizing the various departments wherein the enemy camp had introduced the Alien mythology. He agreed that the literature had to go through the Alien mythical tortures and sooner or later the words and their derivatives slowly took a different meaning.
If it be the intensity of the feeling, rhythmic ecstasy which one sees in Quran through Arabic, then probably, it?s true that Quran with all these flavors cannot be translated. But, a decent translation is not impossible. If many haven't done this, then it?s because they never understood Quran in the light of Quran alone. The rest such as Parvez, and Shabbir Ahmed have interpreted Quran rather than translating it and they are all the more happy with that. If there is something lacking and if you feel it just as I do, then it?s because our research on Arabic Language is still not structured and its sweetness as it existed at that time hasn't been exposed efficiently. Perfection is just not possible and neither probably required, all we need is a sincere team work wherein the seekers gathers to understand Quran and with all differences learn to tolerate, respect and work towards creating an unanimity as closest possible.
Saladin said does the Quran say that they added stuff to the injeel ? can u quote any verse please?
Forget about Injeel, I doubt if there is a verse that claims the literal protection of Quran. Much of what is quoted in favor of Quran or against Injeel is a part of our so-called traditional antiques and is still open for anyone to question it even today. In other words, Quran didn't guarantee its protection and when I mean by protection I am referring to each and every word and sentences we read in it. So is the case of Injeel too. If such be the case, then raising a positive or negative remark about Quran or Injeel is unproved. If you have to prove a remark on these two or the rest that are quoted within Quran then you might have to check with the other authorized sources or options, if any.
Regards,
Pondering Mind. -
Peace,
Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from it's original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I think experts in Quranic Arabic would answer this question best.
Nural
Not sure about loosing the essence but all the other are certainly correct
Salam
-
I think we are not addressing the point directly. The Quran gets associated with history from two points.
A. The sketch of Muhammad?s life that establish his truthfulness and the soundness of his character.
B. Understanding the Arabic language of his time.Without history, how can we meet those who very logically demand for at least an acceptable account of Muhammad?s life and acceptable sources to understand the Arabic language of his time?
-
A Jew takes for granted the authenticity of the Old Testaments, a Christian the New Testaments, a Hindu the Vedas, the Upanishads etc.
-
Likewise, a Sunni takes for granted the Six Books and a Shia the Four Books.
In the first case, a God Aloner accepts the attitude, while in the second case he does not approve that.
Why? On what basis he accepts a book without historical investigation while rejects a book without historical investigation?
This world of ours, our intellect and the data available to us are such that we can not have exactness in determining what really is happening or happened. There is a rule of sufficient reason. Our world is an world of sufficient reason. After all, man is trying to know the history of the Earth from the signs available in its crust. Man is trying to know what happened during the time of Babylonian, Egyptian civilizations. We think we know about Secretes, Alexander, Plotinus etc.
But when the case of Muhammad, Abu Bakr or Omar is put forward, everything gets to be hard and impossible. Why? Was Bukhari or Muslim inferior to Mark or Luke? Did the Christians make better efforts to preserve the history of Christ than the Muslims did for Muhammad? On what basis can we claim that Bukhari and Muslim are not acceptable while Mark and Luke are acceptable?
-
-
Quote
what basis can we claim that Bukhari and Muslim are not acceptable while Mark and Luke are acceptable?
No basis to be found, they all the same, just a bunch of humans who were vulnerable to be flawed like me and you
Salam
-
peace
Saladin, does the quran NEED to tell you that the Bible is a collection of stuff that has nothing to do with God's message? if one reads it with an open mind, it is obvious to one that stuff has been added on to what the original book was.salam Nural and phoenix1 .
the Bible has nothing to do with Allah's message . i dont think the Bible is the taurat or injeel mentioned in the Koran .
verse 568 says "Say "O people of the Book, you are about nothing until you uphold the Taurat and the Injeel and what was sent down to you from your Lord."...
why would Allah command ppl to uphold the taurat and injeel if they were corrupted ? He wouldnt command to uphold the satanic books Torah and Gospel .
-
Peace,
Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from it's original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I think experts in Quranic Arabic would answer this question best.
Nural
I choose to say the translation is NOT corrupted. I prefer to say the translation doesn't accurately reflect the original arabic.
And below is what I choose to say corruption.
Shahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234
Narrated Abu Qilaba
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."