Can you PROVE that God's previous scriptures have been corrupted?
-
Peace,
I don't agree with this statement saladin, as for
1.Why use the term Nasara and Jews in those verses? As the ones who believe also come from non-muslim backgrounds. Because then they are no Jews or Christians anymore.
the "jews, nasara and sabians", will only remain a label if they believe and lead a righteous life .
The people who followed the Prophet were mostly nature-worshippers, why are they not included?
what do u mean ?
It says 'Oh you who believe' which directly refers to the followers of the Quran, and then seperatly are the Jews, Nasara, Sabians and everyone who believes in God,Yaumwedeen and is righteous.
it says "whoever believes"(jews,nasara ,sabians) . if they believe , then they are also believers . why not ?
2.I agree that Jew refers to origin, but Nasara does not. I come from Christian background, but i'm Muslim now. So the term Nasara doesn't apply to me anymore. This is why your concept doesn't work in my eyes.
You come from a Christian background and you cannot change that . but u can submit yourself to Allah (2111-112) . and it is after submitting that you become a submitter/muslim . ?muslim? is not a label .
3.The verses that refer to that they must uphold their Book if they believe in it.
What ? I don?t understand .
-
Peace,
That is not what the verse says, it says the Jews, Nasara that will live righteous and believe in God will be ok.
What i meant is, that you mean that this refers to that the Jews and Christians are to be Muslims before they fall under this verse, as this is not mentioned in the verse, plus what does 'oh you who believe' mean then? Why mention the Jews and Christians after 'o you who believe'?
Muslim is a label. But a neutral one. Jews, Christianity and all other labels are like soccer-teams. Jews are Barcalona, Christians are Milano, and so on. The thing with Muslim is that it doesn't want a 'team', it is just a soccer player. That is the difference. I'm not still playing for Christianity, i'm just a free soccer player belonging to no group. So i'm not a Nasara anymore, i'm beyond that now, not that i don't like my past, certainly not.
-
Peace,
That is not what the verse says, it says the Jews, Nasara that will live righteous and believe in God will be ok.
'righteous' according to what ? righteous life according to their own standards, their own desires , or their Bible ? and believe in their own version of God ? the biblical version ? the God who needed rest on the seventh day ?
What i meant is, that you mean that this refers to that the Jews and Christians are to be Muslims before they fall under this verse, as this is not mentioned in the verse, plus what does 'oh you who believe' mean then? Why mention the Jews and Christians after 'o you who believe'?
to be more specefic . to show that label or background doesnt matter once one has submitted . thats what i understand . read 2111-112 .
-
Peace,
Few take that serious nowadays. And yes, most only take the righteous stuff out of it. It is always funny to see the distorted view born-muslims have of christians. Don't think i defend the Bible, but i believe they still get enough wisdom out of it to work uot their ideas. Most laws of countries in the western world are based on philosophers ideas, which themselves were mostly influenced by the 'be good' message from the Gospel. So yes, they can get righteous in their own way using that scripture. is not compared with the Quran of course. The western world learned from the islamic world how to use free-thinking to get the best results, this was lost by the muslim ummah after 1200......
-
Peace,
Few take that serious nowadays. And yes, most only take the righteous stuff out of it. It is always funny to see the distorted view born-muslims have of christians. Don't think i defend the Bible, but i believe they still get enough wisdom out of it to work uot their ideas. Most laws of countries in the western world are based on philosophers ideas, which themselves were mostly influenced by the 'be good' message from the Gospel. So yes, they can get righteous in their own way using that scripture. is not compared with the Quran of course. The western world learned from the islamic world how to use free-thinking to get the best results, this was lost by the muslim ummah after 1200......
so they pick and choose what is righteous in the man-made Bible ? by what criteria ? their own desires .
men cannot guide like Allah . according to 238 the people among those who will have no fear or grieve(like in 262) , will have to follow Allah's guidance .
238-39 We said "Descend from it all of you, so when the guidance comes from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, they will have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." And those who reject and deny Our ayat, they are the dwellers of Hell, in it they will abide.
what is Allah's guidance ? surely NOT the Bible . and NOT the religion of the jews and christians . and NOT their desires(their picking and choosing ?guidance/be good message?)
2120 Neither the Yahood/Jews nor the Nasara/Christians will be pleased with you until you follow their religion . Say "The guidance of Allah is THE Guidance." And if you follow their wishes/desires after the Knowledge that has come to you, then there is none who can help or protect you against Allah.
-
Salaam all,
I would like to give some examples of "corrupted parts" in the previous scriptures.
2KINGS 1827 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
To read some examples of confirmed parts in the previous scriptures, try this
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5941.msg91117#msg91117 -
As Salaamu Alaykum
The Holy Qur'aan condemns Jews for altering/changing the words of Allah
Qur'aan 446
Qur'aan 541
If you want evidence of the corruption of the previous scriptures go to this link below and read the book "Is The Bible God's Words?" by Ahmed Deedat
http//www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/books/Books/itbgw/index.html
Salaam
-
If you carefully read New Testament, you can not find the history of Jesus between age of 17 to 27.
When you believe Paul, he had declared not to abide to Taurah Law.
-
If I am allowed to reject Bukhari and Muslim with some standards of judgment, I first shall reject with the same standards what I have got from the anonymous Jews and Christians like Mark, Luke etc.
Then I will ask the holders of Quran the following question.
How do you know that the Quran is really from God?
Is it just because the Quran itself claims to be? Or just because so many people believes it to be?
-
If I am allowed to reject Bukhari and Muslim with some standards of judgment, I first shall reject with the same standards what I have got from the anonymous Jews and Christians like Mark, Luke etc.
Then I will ask the holders of Quran the following question.
How do you know that the Quran is really from God?
Is it just because the Quran itself claims to be? Or just because so many people believes it to be?
Salaam Prashant Kumar,
You do make a good point. In fact I did identify in myself that even with my Quran alone belief that a large part of my faith was still tainted in a compulsion from my upbringing. When I really ask myself how do I KNOW the Quran is from God? I admit that I don't KNOW, but I do BELIEVE in it's message. And believing in that message and thus acting upon it, is what constitutes my faith. The message in the Quran has been a good reminder to me to keep the bigger picture of my existence in this world in perspective and has readily humbled me to appreciate the blessings in my life and appreciate how delicate these moments are. Ultimately, the Quran's message promises me that ultimate justice will be meted out on the final day, this consoles me when I get wound up at the injustice in the world as I firmly believe everyone will get their comeuppance.
Peace,
Stitch
-
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.