Is Surah al-M??idah contradicting itself?

runninglikezebras

In my research of understanding the word nas?r?, I came across a possible contradiction inside Quran

The name Nazarene occurs fifteen times

From the outset, the problem around the term nas?r?-Nazarene is weighty. Christians never called themselves Nazarenes (except roughly during the ten years that followed Pentecost) what they have been called and have called themselves is Messians (Messianic), i.e. khristianoi-Christians in the Greco-Latin Empire, and its equivalent me??h?y? in Aramean (and the Persian Empire).

So why would they have been called by a different name in the Koran? Did Christians mistakenly use a different name for six hundred years until Islam was born? Even the most conservative translations by Islam?s standards, the Saudi publishing house dar al-Ifta for instance, do not always translate nas?r? by Christians. Here are two counter-examples

?Those who believed, those who follow the Jewish , Nazarenes or Sabeans, whoever believed in God... will have their reward? (surah 262 parall. 569). And also
?Those who have believed, and those who follow the Jewish and the Sabeans and the Nazarenes, the Magians and those who associated with God, God will judge between them on the day of Judgment? (Surah 2217).

This is understandable throughout the Koran, Christians are accused of giving God associates and are therefore doomed to hell. But the first verse, and the second implicitly, sends the nas?r? to Paradise. Should we think that God, who dictated the Koran, used the same term of nas?r? in these two verses to designate instead the ?Nazarene community?? Does God ignore that proper nouns designate unique realities? Is it perhaps a persistent error in interpretation? Or a mistake inherent to the text? But how could it be so?

A close analysis of the 12 other occurrences of the term Nazarene and part of the 31 occurences of the expression ?people of the Book? will provide an answer.

?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the nas?r? as allies they are allies of one another? (551)
You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say We are nas?r?? (582)

The contradiction is so plain that many versions translate nas?r? by Nazarenes in the second verse. Another problem is that verse 51 is illogical how can one pretend that Jews and Christians are friends or allies ?of one another?? Muslim commentators get over the difficulty by saying that those who do evil are allied to each other. Is that possible if they are enemies, as is often the case? The problem therefore seems to lie in verse 551 where the term nas?r?, used just after the term Yah?d (meaning Judaics) can thus only mean Christians. In fact, this passage contains a startling formal inconsistency, as the cantillation reveals a break in the rhythm, which disappear only if we omit ?and the nas?r?? (wa n-nas?r?). The balanced text is this

?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews as allies they are allies of one another? (551).

Now the verse is clear, meaningful and coherent. Now the contradiction with verse 82 is gone. The convergence of these three factors leaves little room for doubt the passage was interpolated.

So why was wa n-nas?r? inserted in the first place? Some could even object was there a serious enough reason for taking the chance of causing a major formal contradiction a few verses further? There is a reason.

Before looking at it, we must make this remark, formulated by Antoine Moussali Koranic expressions like and/or nas?r? are all interpolations (perceptible to the ear) you find them in surahs 2111 (?or nas?r??); 2113 (followed by ?and the nas?r? say the Jews have nothing to stand on?);2120 (and the nas?r??); 2135 (or nas?r?); 2140 (or nas?r?); and 518 (?and nas?r??). In verse 2135, the addition of ?or nas?r?? after ?be Jews? is especially devoid of logic it implies that the ?sons of Abraham? recommend that people be either ?Jews or Christians?. Without the addition, the verse is again comprehensible

?They (the sons of Abraham, cf. 2133) say Be Jews, you will be guided. Say Rather the religion (millah) of Abraham, as han?f-s (han?fan)? (2135).

This verse acquires rich meaning, and should be compared to 367, when also rid of ?and not a nasr?n??

?Abraham was not a Jew but he was a han?f who submitted (han?fan musliman)? (367).

The two verses say that Abraham was not a Jew since he was himself the father of the Jews, and that those, relying on their election, did not remain faithful to the religion of their forefather who submitted to God (muslim). The same idea is present in the gospels (for example in Mt 39 and Lk 38 ), but here the affirmation is quite ironic as Abraham is presented as model of the han?f. To grasp the scope of the anti-Jewish polemic pervasive in the Koran but antedating its written form, we need to know that in the Talmud-s, the term hanef means herectic, an equivalent of m?n . By presenting Abraham as a kind of ?heretic who submitted to God?, Jacqueline Genot (+ 2004) explained, those two verses turn back against Judaism the Judaic condemnation of those they themselves deem heretic ? in particular those whom patristic tradition calls the Nazarenes if we are heretics, they say, then Abraham was heretic before us you are the unfaithful heretics!

Here we touch upon a major problem of contemporary Islamology what can we understand of the Koran?s Jewish polemic if we do not know the historic contemporary background of Judaism and its branches? The ties between the two are not mere hypotheses. A publicly verifiable, recurrent evidence that is never contradicted or explained away by a logical argument belongs to the domain of the factual and nonarbitrary.

Why modify the meaning of the word nas?r??

As far as we are concerned, Koranic expressions of the type ?wa n-nas?r?? (unlike other occurrences of the word nas?r?) are additions to the text forcing the reader to think that nas?r? stands for Christians this isn?t a mere happenstance. But what goal was being pursued by intentionally stretching the word and by doing so truncating its meaning? The historical context furnishes the explanation. If, from the time of ?Uthm?n, the decision was made to showcase the current ?Islam? as an autonomous reality willed by God, its Nazarene roots had to be masked, particularly in the writings produced to oppose the Jews and Christians? Bible ? even if, historically speaking, nothing proves that the collected works were officially presented as divine before the 7th century; similarly, nothing indicates that the terms Islam and Muslim had already been employed in the modern sense (before the 8th century, Muslim simply meant one who submits (is subjected) as we see in the mouth of the Apostles in 5111 ? true to the Aramean root ? while isl?m meant submission).

In the absence of skilled men who could rewrite the totality of the manuscripts, it was more expedient to alter the meaning of nas?r? by adding words, a much more clever tactic than suppressing its occurences collective memory can veer off much more easily than it can be erased by an authoritarian edict. But the first meaning did not completely disappear. Two centuries after Muhammad, Ibn Hi??m still called Waraqa, the man who blessed his marriage with Khadija, a ?Nazarene priest?. This couldn?t be in any way a Christian priest. The fact that this Waraqa is said to have translated books from Hebrew to Arabic points to a Jewish context ? even though Muhammad, for his part, was Arab. We also read that

?Waraqa ibn Nawfal was priest and chief of the Nazarenes...He was excellently acquainted with Nazareism. He frequently read the books of the Nazarenes, until he knew them like the people of the Book?. And ?Concerning Waraqa, he was seeking wisdom through Nazareism; it was the Nazarenes who introduced their books to him, so that he had acquired a sure knowledge of the people of the Book ?.

A passage of Bukh?r? gives this further explanation

?It happened that Waraqa deceased and the revelation dried up? (Azzi, p.205 ).

Doesn?t Bukh?r? mean the texts collected together in one book, which later came to be known as Koranic revelation? It should also be pointed out that Khadija was supposedly a cousin of Waraqa, therefore she too was Nazarene. This marriage certainly provides a key to the origin of ?Islam?.

To close our chapter around the occurrences of the word nas?r?, one should cite verses 514 and 930, where the perceived interpolations go beyond a few words that a trained ear can detect those are vaster and more complex. For want of space, let us leave aside verse 930 (where we find wa n-nas?r?) to better examine the most telling verse 514.

This verse, in its entirety, reflects a late Muslim dogmatic push to accuse the nas?r? of having ?forgotten part of what they had been reminded?. But in the rest of the Koran, we never read that Christians have ?forgotten? a certain part of the Revelation (which we would then interpret as what concerned the future coming of Muhammad). If that is the case, we must admit that verse 514 is related to verse 616, making Jesus claim to be ?the prophet of a messenger who comes after me, whose name is Ahmad ?. But remember that here too we are confronted to a late Islamic apologetic based on a very creative comparison with the Greek word parakl?tos present in Saint John?s gospel. Can the original Koranic text contain a polemic that only surfaced over a century later, by all historians? accord? Similarly to the core part of verse 616, verse 514 is a longer, complete interpolation, arranged with borrowed and slightly adapted elements from the foregoing verses 12 and 13.

The stakes are high, for if we continue on to verses 12-20 and skip verse 14, Christians are no longer mentioned, whereas the whole passage takes on a new, rigorously coherent meaning, handing out a diatribe against an important part of the ?sons of Israel? who didn?t remain faithful to their promises (v.12), who forgot ?part of what they had been reminded? (v.13) and for whom a ?Messenger came in the past (qad),? bringing a light and a text revealing what had been kept hidden (v.15). We know that this ?Messenger from God to the sons of Israel? is Jesus, as verse 616 rightly states (just before the interpolated part)! The diatribe expressed in 512-20 is therefore a long reproach made to the Jews who don?t recognize Jesus as the Messiah (i.e. the Judaics), who think that he died (v.17 includes a dialectical allusion, probably from the time of the emergence of the Christian faith), who believe to be ?God?s favorite children? (v.18 without the interpolation wa n-nas?r?), and who haven?t accepted the message of Jesus (v.19) and listened to Moses to whom they owe everything (v.20).

Occurrences of the expression ?ahl al-Kit?b?

To begin, it is worth noting that the expression ?people of the Book? occurs twice in the passage that we are examining (in verses 515 and 519). It is used in the form of an address (?O people of the Book!?) to the Jews with undertones of reproach they are the unworthy possessors of the Book of which they concealed many passages (v.15), at least as far as the coming of ?the-Messiah-Jesus? is concerned (this expression al-Mas?h-?Is? is found four times in the Koran!). This is where we realize that ?people of the Book? is to be taken in the sense used by Ibn Hi??m (cf. supra) concerning Waraqa. Those ?people? are all the ?sons of Abraham?, who have received the Book. Among them, some have purposely covered up parts of the Book ? the text calls them al-Yah?d (the Judaics) ?, and some others are called faithful Jews or Nazarenes, who accept the Luminous Book brought to complement the revelation (v.15). Christians are not included in this large group, Muslims even less, evidently. Waraqa is called a ?priest?, but this shouldn?t mislead us the Nazarene sect had its own priests, even some individuals leading a consecrated single life, as we find in this exhortation aimed at Arab audiences

?You will surely find that the people who are the most hostile to the believers are al-Yah?d and those who associate others to God; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ?We are Nas?r?.? That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant? (582).

Many translators are not deceived (ex Hamidullah) and simply render nas?r? by Nazarenes. Besides, why would a preacher remind 7th-century Arabs that among the Christians they will find priests and monks? The Arabs knew them well as they encountered them everywhere around the desert, or during pilgrimages to Saint Sergius? shrine, a very popular destination for the Arabs (several shrines were dedicated to him). There were even monasteries for Arab women. The Koran isn?t referring to these monks but to those found in the Nazarene Jewish community denoted by the word ummah

?Among the people of Moses an Ummah guides in the truth and so renders righteous? (7159 ? this Ummah textually and clearly is a part of the Jewish people, not the ?Muslims?!)
.

For some rise in the middle of the night for the nightly prayer (following the monastic tradition)

?Not all of them are alike among the people of the Book a standing (q??imatun) Ummah rehearses the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration? (3113).

Why do Muslims take it for granted that they belong to the people of the Book?

So far we have unveiled two facets of the people of the Book. What about the Muslims? Although the inclusion of Muslims in this group is never explicitly stated in the Koran, the belief stems implicitly from certain passages alluding to ... the Koran itself the people of the Book who read it must also be people of the Book. By extension, according to this pure logic, the Christians must also belong to it. These ideas coalesce around verse 566 where the Koran makes a reference to itself. This verse is framed by two mentions of the ?people of the Book? (v.65 and 6. Since we read that

?Among them is a moderate (muqtasidah ? or upright) Ummah? (566b),

we are forced to imagine, against the obvious meaning of the passages quoted above, that the ummah in question is the Islamic community. A close analysis is needed to identify where the issue lies.

The wide context of this verse is an anti-Judaic polemic extending from the beginning of this surah al-M??idah to verse 82 (including a tengent against those who ?associate?, serving as a dialectical counterpart ? verses 72-76 ? to which verse 82 alludes). In such an anti-Judaic context, it is hardly surprising that the expression ahl al-Kit?b occurs many times (six in fact)

We have already seen its occurrences in verses 15 and 19. There is another verse 59

?O People of the Book, do you resent us except that we have believed in God and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?? (559).

What was ?revealed to us? and what was ?revealed before?? It is easy to guess. In fact it is openly stated in verses 66 and 68 respectively, the inj?l (light brought by Jesus, cf. supra 515), and of course, the T?rah, forming the main part of the Hebrew Bible.

What about the Koran then? Shouldn?t this sacred text say of itself that it also was divinely revealed? If there was ever a place to affirm it, it is here. And so it is, four consecutive times in verses 66, 67 and 68 but in a more subtle way than just an explicit ?T?rah-Inj?l- Koran? trio. And yet this rough trilogy appears once in the Koran

?Indeed, God has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties for that they will have Paradise. They fight unto death (i.e. go as far as to kill, yuq?til?na, root qtl) in the cause of God, so they kill (qtl) and are killed. a true promise upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Koran? (9111).

What some may find shocking is that ternary formulas are systematically absent in the Koran, except in this exact verse, where ?Koran? is intentionally used as a self reference criterion. And that is exactly the issue how can a book in the making refer to itself as an already-existing one? Some tend to think that verse 9111 is prophetic, pointing to the eternal existence in heaven of an eternal Koran in God?s possession, next to the T?rah and the Inj?l. Others think that it is simply a crass addition to the text.

This trilogy is almost unthinkable in verses 566-68 which speak not from God?s perspective (who gives his promise, 9111) but instead from man?s perspective (who must observe ?the T?rah and the Inj?l?). From a human standpoint, the Muslim discourse admits that the Koran was then a text in the process of being dictated and not an achieved work. Rather than speak about a ?Koran?, it thus seemed more appropriate and more subtle to speak about ?What Was Revealed To ...By The Lord?, where ?to? would mean ?to you /them?. In brief WWRT_BTL. This formula is already partially present in verse 59 curiously, we encounter it again in verses 66 to 68, twice in fact in verse 68. Regarding verse 67, R?gis Blach?re wrote that ?in its current state, the text is embarrassing to commentators?. Let us leave it aside and examine verses 65 and following

?Only the people of the scripture believed and lead a righteous life, we would then cover their sins and admit them into gardens of bliss? (565).

?If only they would uphold the T?rah and the Inj?l and and WWRT_BTL, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them is an upright Ummah, but many of them are evildoers? (566). /(567)/?Say O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Torah and the Inj?l, and WWRT_BTL. And WWRT_BTL surely increases in most of them their obstinate rebellion and unbelief (kufr) . But sorrow not over these unbelievers? (56.

We can now leave aside WWRT_BTL. Let us keep refining our reading.

People of the Book, that is People of the T?rah and the Inj?l

In verse 66, the question of lawful and forbidden foods is raised. Muslim commentators have vainly tried to explain these discussions on what was formerly but no longer forbidden. The T?rah actually prohibited to eat ?what is above? (most birds) and ?what is under their feet? (all crawling beasts snakes, lizards, weasels, mice, etc., but also insects with the exception of certain grasshoppers), cf. Leviticus 11. Verses 587-88 clarify the reproaches to the people of the Book in verse 66

?O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD ... And eat from the good and lawful things that GOD has provided for you? (587-8.
One can almost hear the book of Acts or the gospel of Matthew
?The voice spoke to him again, a second time What God has made clean, you are not to call profane? (Acts 1015 and 119).
?It is not what enters one's mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one? (Mt 1511, developed in 1517-20).
?But tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood? (Acts 1520).

The passage is now crystal clear. A Nazarene-Jewish preacher ? Waraqa or someone else after him ? wished to convince Arabs to ?judaize? (h?da, ?to become Jew?, verse 69 cf. 262 cited supra), but not in the manner of the Judaic Jews who refused the contribution of ?the-Messiah-Jesus? (as the Nazarenes see it) they are accursed. The preacher is addressing everyone, but at times more particularly his representative to the allied Arabs (possibly Muhammad) it is for that person that he developed what he said (or planned to say) to all, while explaining to him how to debate the Judaic Jews, and exhorting him not become discouraged this is the exact content of verse 68 in relation to verse 66.

So it is apparent that the turn of phrases WWRT_BTL in verses 66 and 68, as well as verse 67, are much like foreign bodies if one eliminates them, the text becomes coherent and historic (at any rate, from verse 551 as we restitute it supra to verse 571 which closes the diatribe). According to early Koranic preaching, the people of the Book are those who are expected to observe ?the T?rah and the Inj?l?, precisely because it was to them that God gave the Book

?O Children of Israel ? be not the first to cover? And do not wrap Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)? (2 41-42).
?Those to whom We have given the Book recite it with its true recital. They believe in it. And whoever covers it ? it is they who are the losers? (2121).
?When they are told Come to what GOD has revealed, and to the messenger , they say What we found our parents doing is sufficient for us? (5104).
?Some have said No one will enter Paradise except Jews (h?d)! Such is their wishful thinking. Say Show us your proof, if you are right? (2111). / (2112) / ?The Yah?d (Judaics) said The Nazarenes have no basis /?/ . Yet, both of them read the Book! Such are the utterances of those who possess no knowledge . God will judge them on the Day of Resurrection, regarding what they have changed? (2113).
?Those, among the People of the Book, who cover (Truth) and the associators will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye)? (986).

As with all polemics, those dealing with the Koran are somewhat complex, but originally quite simple.

A fresh look on the ?Book? and its ?tent?

By now we have already encountered seven occurrences of the expression ?ahl al-Kit?b?, including five from surah al-M??idah (plus one which we will mention later). The twenty-four others are easier to identify, and we will content ourselves with addressing just a few in this article.

We must stop at a verse which makes a strong allusion to the Christian faith (by which Christians become people of the Book) ? and not a self-reference to the Koran (by which Muslims become people of the Book); this verse, as such presenting a unique case, must be divided into two parts, not only for its unusual length, but because of its two literary styles (the first is the usual faulty translation)

?O People of the Book! Commit no excess in your religion. Say of God nothing but the truth. The-Messiah-Jesus son of Mary was no more than (inna-m?) a messenger of God, and His Word (kalima), which He bestowed on Mary, is a spirit (ruh, ancient Arabic blow) coming from Him. Believe in God and His messengers? (4171a).
?Say not Three (Trinity) desist. It will be better for you. God is one. Glory be to Him (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Protector? (4,171b).

Evidently the first part (4171a) blames the Judaic Jews for not recognizing ?the-Messiah-Jesus?, while the second (4,171b) addresses the Christians as if they were the sole object of the whole verse. Now, let us rectify the translation above.

Translating l? tal? fi dynikum by ?commit no excess in your religion? does not make sense. It should be translated according to the Syriac ?do not err in your judgment?.
More directly important for our purpose is the adverb ?inna-m? that follows. The official reading of this adverb ?inna-m? gives it a restrictive sense (??s? is only a messenger), just as is the adverbial phrase in the same verse l? taq?l? ?al? Llah ?ill? l-haqq, ?Say of God only (literally nothing but) the truth?. Why? Are there two ways of implying the same restriction? According to the Islamic dogma, ?inna-m? must necessarily be restrictive, so Jesus? messianity may become negligible and the ras?l (messenger) Muhammad acquire a greater status than the ras?l ??s? (Jesus)! But if we apply the meaning that ??s? is only (?inna-m?) a messenger, we have to apply the same meaning elsewhere, to the risk of absurdity, as in

?The believers are only (?inna-m?) brothers? (4910).

Of course, the translation should be ?the believers are such close brothers!?; inna-m? can only accentuate and amplify the meaning of the sentences, not the other way around, as it is the compound of two intensifiers . In order to use it in a restrictive way, it has to include ?ill? (but, otherwise) combined with ?inna or m?, as we see in those two verses

? ?Inna hu ill? ?abdun Indeed, he is only (otherwise) a servant? (4359)
?M? al-Masyh ibn Maryam ill? rasulun What is the Messiah son of Mary if not (otherwise) a messenger!? (575)
In the absence of ?ill?, 4171a must be read ?Indeed, the-Messiah-Jesus son of Mary is God?s messenger!?.

A last remark a Syriac translation undoubtedly anterior to the 10th century doesn?t say ?God and his messengers? at the end of 4171a, but ?God and his Messiah?. This is very surprising in a text where the translation is consistently meticulous and has no interest whatsoever in misleading its Christian readers. In the end, we have reasons to think that the original verse was

?O people of the Book, do not err in your judgment. Say of God nothing but the truth. Indeed the-Messiah-Jesus son of Mary is God?s messenger, His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, is a blow (of life) coming from Him so believe in God and His Messiah!? (4171).

Thus in the original Koran, neither the Christians nor the Muslims are said to be people of the Book, even if verse 577, beginning in the same manner as 4171 (O people of the Book, do not err in your judgment), talks about people who mislead and err because it appears in the final verses of the F?tihah, this verb mislead (dhalla) seems to designate the Christians without naming them, but these verses 16-7 are a long apposition on the word sir?t (way or path); this composition throws off balance the prosody or cadence of a prayer originally structured around six verses (if we count the basmallah), by adding ten rhythmic units (i.e. half as much as the six first verses count of) this is obviously an interpolation. If the current koranic text suggests that Muslims and Christians belong to the ?People of the Book? (alongside the Jews) ? and also that Muslims are the Ummah mentioned in the Koran, it is on account of many manipulations. This process could be compared to a game of ping-pong an incorrect reading in one place is fixed by an addition somewhere else, itself reinforced by another altered interpretation or addition, etc.

No need to go further. The most representative (and difficult) verses have been discussed, and the remaining occurrences of the expression ahl al-kit?b would not add anything to what we said.

Source http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Ahl-al-Kitab_people-of-the-book.htm

beanditis

Nasara has a meaning. So it is best to use that meaning instead of manipulating that word denotes some religion.

As well as yahuda has a meaning. Here again why should you manipulate it to mean a religion as though quran is on its way to establish a religion in contest with two other religion.

So your premise of approaching the subject itself is faulty.

Jesus is no messenger of god. Waraqa or faraqa etal has nothing to do with devine revelation. These pieces of fertile imagination has nothing to do with God's guidance to humanity. Thus goes your theory of waraka kadija nazarene theory out the window.

Toura and injil are names of the same book which is also called quran.

The people of religions like Judaism and Christianity is not referred in quran.

The books being carried around by judaismChristianity are written by people. Quran critisises such people for they write with their own hands and say that is from god.

People of the book are the people of the book.

And what is the book. It is the great reading, noble quran.

So the people of book are different sects who carry the book ie quran.

The yahuda and nasara are prominent sects of the people of the book.

What is left to be done is to identify the nasara and yahud with the qualities prescribed to them in the quran.

That will be pretty easy task.

runninglikezebras

Nasara has a meaning. So it is best to use that meaning instead of manipulating that word denotes some religion.

As well as yahuda has a meaning. Here again why should you manipulate it to mean a religion as though quran is on its way to establish a religion in contest with two other religion.

So your premise of approaching the subject itself is faulty.

Jesus is no messenger of god. Waraqa or faraqa etal has nothing to do with devine revelation. These pieces of fertile imagination has nothing to do with God's guidance to humanity. Thus goes your theory of waraka kadija nazarene theory out the window.

Toura and injil are names of the same book which is also called quran.

The people of religions like Judaism and Christianity is not referred in quran.

The books being carried around by judaismChristianity are written by people. Quran critisises such people for they write with their own hands and say that is from god.

People of the book are the people of the book.

And what is the book. It is the great reading, noble quran.

So the people of book are different sects who carry the book ie quran.

The yahuda and nasara are prominent sects of the people of the book.

What is left to be done is to identify the nasara and yahud with the qualities prescribed to them in the quran.

That will be pretty easy task.

You accept this contradiction?

?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the nas?r? as allies they are allies of one another? (551)
You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say We are nas?r?? (582)

All the indications are the "and the nasara" is a later addition and not part of the original Quran. It not only renders to self-contradiction, it also breaks the rythm.

Islam is not a faith competing with Judaism or Christianity. If anything Islam is by definition a Judeo-Christian faith, more precisely Nazarene.

Peace

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

Are you forgetting the basic rule that applies to 551?

Here it is
557
O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence God, if you are really believers.

This answers which Jews and Christians!
As for 582 God is stating a fact .

In both verses ,Qoran is talking about certain Jews and Christians.

There is no contradiction!

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Wakas

peace rlz,

Whom are you taking as "the people of the book"? In a previous discussion with me you said it was those in receipt of quran. Please clarify.

runninglikezebras

peace rlz,

Whom are you taking as "the people of the book"? In a previous discussion with me you said it was those in receipt of quran. Please clarify.

Peace wakas,

You are correct, I did identify muslims as "people of the book" in earlier posts. I was wrong to do so. I am reviewing the verses using "the people of the book" in the quranic verses (among which those dealing with the qibla).

I'm assuming you referred to this verse ""Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the book all the signs (together), they would not follow thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. if thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, wert to follow their (vain) desires, then wert thou indeed (clearly) in the wrong."

As I understand it now it refers to this verse in the bible

"The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship .Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. " (John 419-23 )"

Though I need to examine those verses more in detail and compare them to historical record.

Peace

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras.

Are you forgetting the basic rule that applies to 551?

Here it is
557
O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence God, if you are really believers.

This answers which Jews and Christians!
As for 582 God is stating a fact .

In both verses ,Qoran is talking about certain Jews and Christians.

There is no contradiction!

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Peace goodlogic,

I did not ignore that verse. It is not speaking about Jews and Christians though. I think the article makes clear why it can't be understood as such. It would make Quran state absurdities like Abraham saying "be jews/christians". That verse does not help identifying them.

Quran is pretty concise, it distincts

Jews who did not accept Jesus as a messenger
Jews who did accept the Messenger (nasara)

Labels such as christians and jews are doing nothing to make clear who is being referred to. None of those groups were homogeneous in their beliefs.

Peace

runninglikezebras

This chart will be helpful for those trying to understand the OP and maps the different schisms in religion as well the origins of them

http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Genealogy-Islam.PNG

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

Here is 557 in Arabic

If you are saying this verse is not speaking about Jews and Christians, then who is the verse speaking about?

Who have been given the scripture before ?

What article makes it clear why it cannot be understood as such?

GOD bless you.
Peace.

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras.

Here is 557 in Arabic

If you are saying this verse is not speaking about Jews and Christians, then who is the verse speaking about?

Who have been given the scripture before ?

What article makes it clear why it cannot be understood as such?

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Let me return that question to show you how vague the labels are you are using. Who are you referring to with 'Christians'?

Are they the judeo-nazarenes? Are they the apostolic christians (orthodox)? Are they the Coptic christians? Are they the Judeo-aramaic christians?

As you can see the labels you are using are ambiguous and do not distinct using the criteria Quran applies.

For Quran the distinction is made based on their acceptance of previous scripture and previous messengers. In this sense the Judeo-nazarenes are most close to the "early" muslims. In contrast, Apostolic christians will have nothing in common.

I hope you can agree the labels "Jews and Christians" are quite meaningless and are traditional interpretations used to establish a "schism" in later period.

Peace

runninglikezebras

A good example of this are the Judeo-Christians living in Qumran who left behind the famous dead sea scrolls. Are they jewish? Are they christian? They are both. Yet they are different from both.

Peace

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

Qoran is talking about "certain Jews and Christians" those who mock and ridicule the believers. It does not matter what denomination they are!!!

I do not see where or what you are getting at?

You are going too deep for something straight forward and simple.

There is no contradiction in the verses you are quoting in this thread.

These "certain Jews and Christians" are the ones who received the scripture before the believers at the time of the prophet. If they were different denominations, Qoran did not give such details except to say "those who mock and ridicule the believers" whatever denomination they were. i.e the denominations are irrelevant!!

GOD bless you.
Peace

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras.

Qoran is talking about "certain Jews and Christians" those who mock and ridicule the believers. It does not matter what denomination they are!!!

I do not see where or what you are getting at?

You are going too deep for something straight forward and simple.

There is no contradiction in the verses you are quoting in this thread.

These "certain Jews and Christians" are the ones who received the scripture before the believers at the time of the prophet. If they were different denominations, Qoran did not give such details except to say "those who mock and ridicule the believers" whatever denomination they were. i.e the denominations are irrelevant!!

GOD bless you.
Peace

The demoninations are very relevant. You can't say eg Jews and Christians - including Judeo-Nazarenes - are those who mock and ridicule the believers. Because it would contradict with Quran saying the Judeo-Nazarenes are the closest to the believers.

But I agree the verse you quoted is irrelevant to understanding the People of the Book. My OP is dealing with identifying the nasara and judaics as mentioned in Quran and exposing verses that have been obviously tampered with (additions of "and the nazarenes" almost always break the rythm/cantillation of the verses in which they were used and make Quran self contradict within one surah even).

Is this not a contradiction in sura 5 (not to mention historically incorrect in 551)?

?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the nas?r? as allies they are allies of one another? (551)
You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say We are nas?r?? (582)

Is this not a contradiction?

?Those who believed, those who follow the Jewish , Nazarenes or Sabeans, whoever believed in God... will have their reward? (surah 262 parall. 569).
?Those who have believed, and those who follow the Jewish and the Sabeans and the Nazarenes, the Magians and those who associated with God, God will judge between them on the day of Judgment? (Surah 2217).

I strongly advise the reader to listen to the recitation of those verses using "and nasara" and pay attention to the cantillation and rythm.

Peace

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

I have explained why I do not find a contradiction, by looking at the context including 557.

I was trying to to help by bringing it to your attention.

I will leave it there.
Thank you for the conversation.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras.

I have explained why I do not find a contradiction, by looking at the context including 557.

I was trying to to help by bringing it to your attention.

I will leave it there.
Thank you for the conversation.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

I understand what you are saying but I do not find this resolving the contradiction

?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the nas?r? as allies they are allies of one another? (551)

=> This verse is not making exceptions about making allies with the Jews and the nasara. There is no room for exception. Are you saying if they don't mock you, you can take them as allies?

You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say We are nas?r?? (582)

=> This doesn't make any exceptions either. It only states the nasara are closest in faith to the believers. Adding your verse to it makes it irrational then it would say, they are closest in belief but are capable of mocking you still. This verse identifies the nasara as the least likely candidates to be mocking believers. Wouldn't you agree?

Once you remove the cantillation/ryhtm breaking "and nasara in 551 it all falls into place. The Jews are only loyal to themselves. The Nasara are the closest to the believers spiritually.

Peace

runninglikezebras

I think it's a very troublesome contradiction. And it's very troublesome to understand Quran has been tampered with.

I appreciate the contribution goodlogic but by any logical standards it does not resolve the contradiction. A verse commanding the believers not to forge an alliance with a specific group leaves no room for exemption based on whether or not they would be mocking believers.

If it was a military command, the modern day result of ignoring such an order and still taking alliances with them would be dealt with court martially. The forbidden group being respectful towards yourself will be no argument.

In motorcycle clubs similar rules exist when they say no contact with such and such MC, the punishment for ignoring that command is quite severe. Even if they were respectful to the MC involved.

Peace

truthseeker11

Peace runninglikezebras,

I think it's a very troublesome contradiction. And it's very troublesome to understand Quran has been tampered with.

Thank you for bringing to attention yet another contradiction in the current text of al-quran which is an addition to the growing list of contradictions that have been discovered and discussed on this forum by other posters and myself in the past.

This adds to my growing suspicion that the current text of al-quran might contain some falsehoods. I am getting more and more convinced that the current text of al-quran (CTQ) is not identical to the original text of al-quran (OTQ). It seems quite a few additions/deletions/omissions were made to and from the OTQ soon after death of Muhammad the messenger, resulting in CTQ. The pagans/negative entities did to al-quran soon after Muhammad what they did to torah and injil in the past soon after Musa and Yashuwa/Isa for their own nefarious agenda of misguiding humanity.

Even latest archeological evidence supports this conclusion of tampering, for example Sanaa palimpsest parchments. The deleted inferior text of the Sanaa palimpsests is significantly different from the later superior text and the CTQ. Many words were deleted from and added to the inferior text resulting in the superior text which is quite close to CTQ.

Out of approximately 15,000 Sanaa parchments discovered belonging to more than 900 Quran copies, only 40 folios were studied in depth by independent linguistic experts which started to reveal evidence of tampering with OTQ. Subsequently Yemeni government placed all of the parchments under lock and key and is currently not allowing any further in depth study by independent linguistic experts to prevent the complete truth from getting exposed.

I am eagerly awaiting discovery of the complete OTQ for confirmation of this suspected tampering, but not too optimistic about it, because I am pretty sure "the ones in power" will not allow that discovery to become public knowledge or will prevent public access to it just like in the case of Sanaa parchments.

May the infinite creator guide us to the truth.

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras,

Thank you for bringing to attention yet another contradiction in the current text of al-quran which is an addition to the long list of contradictions that have been discovered and discussed on this forum by other posters and myself in the past.

This adds to my growing suspicion that the current text of al-quran might contain some falsehoods. I am getting more and more convinced that the current text of al-quran (CTQ) is not identical to the original text of al-quran (OTQ). It seems quite a few additions/deletions/omissions were made to the OTQ soon after death of Muhammad the messenger, resulting in CTQ. The pagans/negative entities did to al-quran soon after Muhammad what they did to torah and injil in the past soon after Musa and Yashuwa/Isa for their own nefarious agenda of misguiding humanity.

Even latest archeological evidence supports this conclusion of tampering, for example Sanaa palimpsest parchments. The deleted inferior text of the Sanaa palimpsests is significantly different from the later superior text and the CTQ. Many words were deleted from and added to the inferior text resulting in the superior text which is quite close to CTQ.

Out of 15,000 Sanaa parchments discovered, only 40 folios were studied in depth by independent linguistic experts which started to reveal evidence of tampering with OTQ. Subsequently Yemeni government placed all of the parchments under lock and key and is currently not allowing any further in depth study by independent linguistic experts to prevent the complete truth from getting exposed.

I am eagerly awaiting discovery of the complete OTQ for confirmation of this suspected tampering, but not too optimistic about it, because I am pretty sure "the ones in power" will not allow that discovery to become public knowledge or will prevent public access to it just like in the case of Sanaa parchments.

May the infinite creator guide us to the truth.

You may find some pointers in this thread helping you in your research the OP points out the origins of Islam are to be found in the Judeo-Nazarene tradition. This is confirmed in Quran

"You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say We are nas?r?? (582)"

Examples of this proto-islamic faith can be found in the writings found in the Qumran scrolls. At the time the Qumran scrolls were written, there were large groups of Judeo-christians who willingly abandoned Jerusalem. From their perspective Temple Mount was controlled by the unrighteous pharisees and judaics who rejected Jesus. In their revolt against the pharisees they turned to an isolated life in remote places in the desert, such as Qumran and the Syrian desert.

Now where did we hear this before?

Will say the foolish ones from the people the people, "What (has) turned them from their qibla which they were used to on it?"

This description is amazingly compatible with the Judeo-Nazarene groups who left Jerusalem such as those in Qumran.

Peace

good_logic

Peace Truthseeker.

So you find contradictions in Qoran, is itbecause you do not believe it is the original,or you have not studied it or you do not understand it properly or...?

Do you believe first then try to find evidence,or do you look for evidence then believe?

Do you believe part of the Qoran is original? Which part/s do you believe is/are from GOD?

What do these verses tell you?Have they been tampered with?

We have cited in this Qoran (all kinds of examples), that they may take heed. But it only augments their aversion.

We thus revealed it, an Arabic Qoran, and we cited in it all kinds of prophecies, that they may be saved, or it may cause them to take heed.

God thus explains the revelations for you. God is Omniscient, Wise.

Whatever argument they come up with, we provide you with the truth, and a better understanding.

Is it not enough of a miracle that we sent down to you this book, being recited to them? This is indeed a mercy and a reminder for people who believe.

Thus, we have cited for the people in this Quran all kinds of examples. Yet, no matter what kind of proof you present to the disbelievers, they say, "You are falsifiers."

As for those who constantly challenge our revelations, they have incurred a retribution of painful humiliation.

It is evident to those who are blessed with knowledge that this revelation from your Lord to you is the truth, and that it guides to the path of the Almighty, the Most Praiseworthy.

Why do they not study the Quran carefully? Do they have locks on their minds?

Do not move your tongue to hasten it. It is we who will collect it into Quran. Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Qoran. Then it is we who will explain it.

How does GOD protect HIS words? What about the latest generations,are they going to receive only part of it?How are they going to find the original?
I am just curious and want to know your thinking.
Thanks in advance.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

runninglikezebras