Can you PROVE that God's previous scriptures have been corrupted?
-
-
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 ."
-
No basis to be found, they all the same, just a bunch of humans who were vulnerable to be flawed like me and you.
The Quran first came out of the mouth of a human named ?Muhammad?.
Was he vulnerable like you and me?
Then a huge number of humans carried it with them. Some humans first compiled it in the book form.
Were not all these humans vulnerable?
-
No basis to be found, they all the same, just a bunch of humans who were vulnerable to be flawed like me and you.
The Quran first came out of the mouth of a human named Muhammad.
Was he vulnerable like you and me?
Then a huge number of humans carried it with them. Some humans first compiled it in the book form.
Were not all these humans vulnerable?
excuse me bro
prophets are not like me and you and the rest of humans, they are too good for us
thanks
-
excuse me bro,
but how do you know that?
peacewell bro
it's logical man, I'm sure Allah will not appoint crooks to be His messengers and perfetc examples to humanity
Cheers
-
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.As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Yes, i agree.
Bible .... just read few first pages and you'll see who added what.
No offence to the christians but we need to talk to them in a nice manner like we are told.As salamu alaykum.
-
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.As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Yes, i agree.
Bible .... just read few first pages and you'll see who added what.and just read 568, it commands to uphold the Taurat and the Injeel revealed by Allah . how can one do it if they are corrupt ? thus Bible is not the Taurat/Injeel . Bible is a man-made book to begin with .
-
it's logical man, I'm sure Allah will not appoint crooks to be His messengers and perfetc examples to humanity.
This is begging the question. This may be valid only if one first assumes that the Quran is from God and Muhammad was the Prophet. One may proceed in the reverse direction. If Muhammad is not a crook, if Muhammad possesses perfect and exemplary character, then only one may consider his claim of prophethood.
The question still remains Is it possible to find in history the facts of the ?perfect example to humanity??
-
it's logical man, I'm sure Allah will not appoint crooks to be His messengers and perfetc examples to humanity.
This is begging the question. This may be valid only if one first assumes that the Quran is from God and Muhammad was the Prophet. One may proceed in the reverse direction. If Muhammad is not a crook, if Muhammad possesses perfect and exemplary character, then only one may consider his claim of prophethood.
The question still remains Is it possible to find in history the facts of the perfect example to humanity?
Mate, there is only one whop claimed to the be the Author of the Quran, who is Allah, now when you bring the others who you allege that are the authors then you will have an argument until then the Quran will stay the words of Allah because He is the only one to have claimed as such, for your argument to be successful, we need someone to challenge Allah and say that the Quran is someone's else work and they must bring or at least tell us who is that mystrious man or men
-
Mate, there is only one whop claimed to the be the Author of the Quran, who is Allah, now when you bring the others who you allege that are the authors then you will have an argument until then the Quran will stay the words of Allah because He is the only one to have claimed as such, for your argument to be successful, we need someone to challenge Allah and say that the Quran is someone's else work and they must bring or at least tell us who is that mystrious man or men
exactly .
The question still remains Is it possible to find in history the facts of the perfect example to humanity?
we are not supposed to find it in history . we find it in the Koran .
-
and just read 568, it commands to uphold the Taurat and the Injeel revealed by Allah . how can one do it if they are corrupt ? thus Bible is not the Taurat/Injeel . Bible is a man-made book to begin with .
Please let your interpretation be known to members here bro.
-
Peace All
The argument presented by brother Saladin does not make sense ?sorry brother Saladin?
568 is not really telling Ahl Al Kitab to follow the Tourat and Ingil at the time of the prophet, because simply this will constitute a clear contradiction within the mission of the prophet, it is obvious that the message of the prophet for Ahl Al Kitab is to follow the Quran not the Tourat or the Bible, 568 is simply telling us that Allah said to Hhis prophet to tell Ahl Al Kitab that they will not be believers until they uphold the tourat, injil and Al Quran ?Wa Ma Onzil Ilaikum?, therefore the verses clearly means that what should be upheld is the uncorrupted versions of those three books, remember who is saying this to them?, IT IS MOHAMMAD and his message is the one that must be followed,
The Quran also told the Muslims to believe in the Tourat and Injil, would that means to believe in the corrupted versions?, of course not , however to find an uncorrupted version of the Tourat and Injil during the time of the prophet and up to this moment is impossible, but that does not mean that there is many uncorrupted passages in the current versions of these two scriptures
Remember that Allah told us that we will read the name Ahmad in the Tourat, this is indeed true with the current corrupt version of it
Salam
-
Peace,
If you read the Scripture delivered by Mohammed, then you will notice that within its pages is a repeat of the laws that were revealed to the Jews and Nazarines and why it was done so (such as the Sabaath, not eating meat mixed with fat. etc..).
Therefore, I would conclude that the Torah and Injeel are those sections within the final Scripture that was revealed by God through Mohammed and not the corrupt bible/torah versions that are full of lies and blasphemeies about God and His messengers.
-
and just read 568, it commands to uphold the Taurat and the Injeel revealed by Allah . how can one do it if they are corrupt ? thus Bible is not the Taurat/Injeel . Bible is a man-made book to begin with .
Please let your interpretation be known to members here bro.
my interpretation of taurat and injeel ? i havent figured it out completely yet . but they cant be the Bible . taurat and injeel should be found in the Koran . which parts of Koran exactly are they ? i m not sure .
